diff --git "a/36_years1992-03.jsonl" "b/36_years1992-03.jsonl"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/36_years1992-03.jsonl"
@@ -0,0 +1,720 @@
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/354331d2-2396-4c04-b6ef-30e95aba0eb4", "title": "Question No 88 by Mr EPHREMIDIS (H-0360/92) to the Commission: Acquisition of majority holding in the Greek company AGET", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "EPHREMIDIS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "Greece,cartel,cement,dominant position,merger,privatisation,takeover bid", "workIds": "celex:91992H000360", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "cartel", "cement", "dominant position", "merger", "privatisation", "takeover bid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/354331d2-2396-4c04-b6ef-30e95aba0eb4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9d1da31f-26c4-4567-9b9e-416bcbee7f76", "title": "92/276/EEC, Euratom, ECSC: Final Adoption of amending and supplementary budget No 1 of the European Communities for the financial year 1992", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#budget,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#budget-amending,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "Community budget,adoption of the budget,amending budget,supplementary budget", "workIds": "budget:BUDGET_SUPPL_AMEND-1992-1-1,celex:31992B0276,oj:JOL_1992_142_R_0001_007", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Community budget", "adoption of the budget", "amending budget", "supplementary budget"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9d1da31f-26c4-4567-9b9e-416bcbee7f76", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f7762c31-17a7-4ea5-9701-616e8df6361b", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 825/92 of 1 April 1992 postponing the date for the take-over of beef and veal offered for sale by the intervention agencies pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2848/89", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "intervention stock,selling price", "workIds": "celex:31992R0825,oj:JOL_1992_087_R_0013_039", "eurovoc_concepts": ["intervention stock", "selling price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f7762c31-17a7-4ea5-9701-616e8df6361b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ee7f91c6-ae73-4eef-9534-24732babfa4e", "title": "92/262/EEC: Commission Decision of 1 April 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/32.450: French-West African shipowners' committees) (Only the Spanish, Danish, German, English, French and Dutch texts are authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "Africa,France,dominant position,maritime transport,market-sharing agreement", "workIds": "celex:31992D0262,oj:JOL_1992_134_R_0001_004", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Africa", "France", "dominant position", "maritime transport", "market-sharing agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ee7f91c6-ae73-4eef-9534-24732babfa4e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/01d4566e-5f01-48c6-8e41-5ea1028a3013", "title": "92/236/Euratom: Commission Opinion of 1 April 1992 concerning the plan to release radioactive effluents from the Covra NV radioactive waste processing and storage facility at Sloe (Netherlands), pursuant to Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#opinion,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "Belgium,Netherlands,industrial waste,radioactive effluent,radioactive pollution", "workIds": "celex:31992A0236,oj:JOL_1992_121_R_0044_035", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Belgium", "Netherlands", "industrial waste", "radioactive effluent", "radioactive pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/01d4566e-5f01-48c6-8e41-5ea1028a3013", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cb0a7fa3-d472-4665-bf4b-1b1f230afedc", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "common customs tariff,foreign trade,statistics,tariff nomenclature", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0122,comnat:COM_1992_0122_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["common customs tariff", "foreign trade", "statistics", "tariff nomenclature"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cb0a7fa3-d472-4665-bf4b-1b1f230afedc", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(92) 122 final \n\nBrussels* 1 Apr!I 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\namending Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff \n\nand statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n:\u2022 r \n\n>* \n\nlft\"l? \n\n\u2022L-i 5 \n\nIt1, \n\n\fEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\n4 \n\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 \nhas established, with effect from January 1988, a \ngoods nomenclature called the Combined Nomenclature \n(CN) to meet the requirements both of the Common \nCustoms Tariff and of the external trade statistics \nof the Community. On the basis of the Combined Nomenclature, the \nCommission has established an integrated tariff of \nthe European Communities known as \"Taric\". The \nTaric not only forms the basis for the national \nuser tariffs applied in the Member States, but also \nserves as the basis for the gathering of statistics \nin respect of third country imports. Under the \npresent terms of Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 \nprovision is made for national subdivisions to \nappear at the ninth digit between the CN codes \n(seventh and eighth digits) and the Taric \nsubdivisions (tenth and eleventh digits). This means that the natural progression of the \ncodes required for Community purposes through the \nHarmonized System, the Combined Nomenclature and \nTaric, is interrupted for national statistical \nreasons. This has led to difficulties, at Community \nlevel, with regard to the automation of customs \nprocedures and use of the Single Administrative \nDocument (SAD). 3 \n\n4. 5. In order to avoid these difficulties and ensure a \nmore coherent hierarchical structure of the codes \nused, it is considered that arrangements should be \nmade for any national subdivisions to appear after \nthe Taric subdivisions. This requires an amendment \nto Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87. The draft Regulation will serve as an accompanying \nmeasure of the Internal Market, but it is proposed \nthat its application should be deferred until 1st \nJanuary 1994 in order to allow Member States time \nto implement the new provisions. 1 \n\nProposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) \n\namending Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff \n\nand statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community \n\nand In particular Article 113 thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nWhereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987(1), as last \n\namended by \n\nRegulation (EEC) No \n\n, of \n\n(2), establishes a goods \n\nnomenclature called the combined nomenclature; \n\nWhereas the Commission established an Integrated tariff of the European \n\nCommunities, hereinafter referred to as the \"Taric\", based on the combined \n\nnomenclature; \n\n(1) OJ L 256, 7. 9. 1987, p. 1. (2) \n\nTelephone: direct line 235. 42. 57 exchange 235. 11. 11 - Telex COMEU B 21877 - Telegraphic oddress COMEUR Brussels - Telefax 235. 65. 01 \n\nRue de lo Loi 200 - B-1049 Brussels - Belgium \n\n\f- 2 -\n\ny \n\nWhereas in Articles 3 and 5 of the abovement ioned regulation It is \n\nspecified that Member States may Insert national statistical subdivisions \n\nafter the codes used for combined nomenclature subheadings but before the \n\ncodes used to identify the Tarlc subdivisions applied at the Community \n\nlevel; \n\nWhereas the differences, caused by these arrangements, between the external \n\ntrade nomenclatures and the goods codes of Member \n\nStates creates \n\ndifficulties with regard to the automation, at Community level, of customs \n\nprocedures and the use of the single administrative document. As a result, \n\nauthorisation to include national statistical subdivisions after the \n\ncombined nomenclature should be withdrawn. Whereas, as Community law stands at present, the possibility, provided for \n\nby Article 5 (3) of the above mentioned regulation, to Insert national \n\nsubdivisions after the Taric subdivisions must, however, be maintained; \n\nMember States who so wish, may also use these subdivisions to code national \n\nexternal trade statistics requirements. Whereas in order to obviate these difficulties and to ensure a more \n\ncoherent hierarchical structure of trie codes used In this field It is \n\nappropriate to ensure that any national subdivisions be Introduced after \n\n; the Tarlc subdivisions; \n\nWhereas, account should also be taken of the expiry of the provisions laid \n\ndown in Article 5 (4) of the abovementIoned regulation; \n\n\fHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION : \n\n- 3 -\n\nQ \n\nA r t i c le 1 \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 2658/87 Is hereby amended as follows : \n\na) \n\nArticle 3 (2), (3) and (4) shall be replaced by the following: \n\n\"2. The Tarlc subheadings shall be Identified by the 9th and 10th \n\ndigits which, together with the code numbers referred to in \n\nparagraph 1, form the Tarlc code numbers. In the absence of a \n\nCommunity subdivison, the 9th and 10th digits shall be \"00\". 3. Exceptionally, an additional Tarlc code of four characters may be \n\nused for the application of specific Community measures which are \n\nnot coded, or not entirely coded, at the 9th and 10th digit \n\nlevel\". i \n\nJ-\n\nb) \n\nArticle 5 (3) and (4) shall be replaced by the following : \n\n\"3. Member States may Insert subdivisions for national purposes after \n\nthe Tarlc subheadings. Identifying codes shall be assigned to \n\nsuch subdivisions in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No \n\n2793/86. \" \n\n\fArticle 2 \n\n7 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its \n\npublication In the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall be applied with effect from 1 January 1994. This Regulation shall be binding in Its entirety and directly applicable In \n\na I I Member States. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\nThe President \n\n\f\fISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 122 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n17 02 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-134-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42405-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nLr2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d40326ca-6551-4175-9f73-706a4b498c91", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 839/92 of 1 April 1992 amending the list annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 55/87 establishing the list of vessels exceeding eight metres length overall permitted to use beam trawls within certain areas of the Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "Denmark,EU waters,Netherlands,fishing regulations,fishing vessel,technical standard", "workIds": "celex:31992R0839,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0027_038", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Denmark", "EU waters", "Netherlands", "fishing regulations", "fishing vessel", "technical standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d40326ca-6551-4175-9f73-706a4b498c91", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d5faf379-3c66-4326-bd05-3518a739f08c", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION concerning notification of the acceptance by the Community of the International Coffee Agreement 1983, as extended to 30 September 1993", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_other,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "coffee,commodity agreement,international agreement", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0116,comnat:COM_1992_0116_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["coffee", "commodity agreement", "international agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d5faf379-3c66-4326-bd05-3518a739f08c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92)116 final \n\nBrussels, 1 Apr I I 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DECISION \n\nconcerning notification of the acceptance by the Community of \nthe International Coffee Agreement 1983, \nas extended to 30 September 1993 \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\f\"C \"\" \n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nWith Council Decision 87/485/EEC of 28 September 1987,1 the Community \napproved the International Coffee Agreement 1983 which came into force on \n1 October 1983 for a period of six years expiring on 30 September 1989. Article 68 of the Agreement specifies that the Agreement may be extended, \nwith or without amendments, or renegotiated. With resolution No 347 of 4 July 1989, the International Coffee Council \ndecided to extend the International Coffee Agreement 1983 for a period of \ntwo years, until 30 September 1991, while suspending a number of \nprovisions, including most of Chapter VII. The Community notified the UN \nSecretary-General of its acceptance of the Agreement as extended on \n29 September 1989. With resolution No 352 of 28 September 1990, the International Coffee \nCouncil decided to extend the International Coffee Agreement 1983 for a \nfurther period of one year, until 30 September 1992. The Community notified \nthe UN Secretary-General of its acceptance of the Agreement as extended on \n19 September 1991. With resolution No 355 of 27 September 1991, the International Coffee \nCouncil decided to extend the International Coffee Agreement 1983 for a \nfurther period of one year, until 30 September 1993. The Commission believes that the Community and its Member States should \ncomplete the necessary formalities to take part in the Agreement as \nextended as quickly as possible, and in any case before 25 September 1992. It is important that the Community and its Member States should, on the \nbasis of a jointly agreed position, notify simultaneously the UN \nSecretary-General of their acceptance of the Agreement as extended, since \nany individual moves on the part of the Member States would be contrary to \nthe EEC Treaty. 1 OJ L 276, 29. 9. 1987. 7 \ny \n\nPROPOSAL FOR A \n\nCOUNCIL DECISION \n\nconcerning notification of the acceptance by -the Community of \nthe International Coffee Agreement 1983, \nas extended to 30 September 1993 \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \nand in particular Articles 113 and 116 thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nWhereas the Council approved, by Decision 87/485/EEC1, the International \nCoffee Agreement 1983, which came into force on 1 October 1983 for a period \nof six years expiring on 30 September 1989; \n\nWhereas, by resolution No 347 of 4 July 1989, the International Coffee \nCouncil decided to extend the Agreement for a period of two years until \n30 September 1991; whereas, by resolution No 352 of 28 September 1990, the \nInternational Coffee Council decided to extend the Agreement for a further \nperiod of one year until 30 September 1992; whereas, by resolution No 355 \nof 27 September 1991, the International Coffee Council decided to extend \nthe Agreement for a further period of one year until 30 September 1993; \n\nWhereas the Community and its Member States should simultaneously notify \nthe United Nations Secretary-General of their acceptance of the Agreement \nas extended until 30 September 1993, \n\n1 OJ L 276, 29. 9. 1987, p. 61. \u2022\n\n/-\n\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: \n\nArticle 1 \n\n1. In accordance with resolution No 355 of 27 September 1991 of the \n\nInternational Coffee Council/ the International Coffee Agreement 1983, \nas extended until 30 September 1993, is hereby approved on behalf of the \nEuropean Economic Community. The text of the resolution is attached to this Decision. 2. The Community and its Member States, once they have completed the \nnecessary internal procedures, shall simultaneously notify the \nUnited Nations Secretary-General of their acceptance of the Agreement as \nextended until 30 September 1993. Article 2 \n\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the person \nempowered to deposit, on behalf of the European Economic Community, the \nnotification referred to in Article 1(2). Done at \n\nCertified true copy \nFor the Secretary-General \n\nDirector-General \n\nFor the Council \nThe President \n\n\f\u00a9 \n\nCOFFEE \n\nINTERNATIONAL \nINTERNACIONAL DEL CAFE \nINTERNACIONAL DO CAFE \nINTERNATIONALE DU CAFE \n\nORGANIZACION \nORGANIZACAO \nORGANISATION \n\nORGANIZATION \n\nInternational Coffee Council \nFifty-seventh Session \n23 - 27 September 1991 \nLondon, England \n\nI CC Resolution No. 355 (E) \n\n30 September 1991 \nOriginal: English \n\nRESOLUTION NUMBER 355 \n\n(APPROVED AT THE SIXTH PLENARY MEETING, 27 SEPTEMBER 1991) \n\nINTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ON COFFEE \n\nWHEREAS: \n\nNoting that 29 years of existence of international coffee agreements have \n\ndemonstrated that they have been useful and positive instruments for international \n\ncooperation; \n\nNoting that a number of new proposals and ideas have been put forward both \n\nby Producers and Consumers with respect to dealing both with the immediate market \n\nsituation and with the development of measures for the future organization of the \n\nmarket; \n\nNoting that the political will and constructive spirit exist to examine all possible \n\nbases for a new International Coffee Agreement to be negotiated in the near \n\nfuture; and \n\nNoting that the International Coffee Agreement 1983 as extended by Resolutions \n\nnumbers 347 and 352 is due to expire on 30 September 1992 and that in order to give \n\n\fsufficient time both to study and implement such new proposals and ideas and to \n\nensure that the forum of the International Coffee Organization be maintained, it is \n\nnecessary that the International Coffee Agreement 1983 be further extended, \n\nTHE INTERNATIONAL COFFEE COUNCIL \n\nRECOGNIZES: \n\nThat the continuation of the present market situation, with real prices of coffee \n\nat their lowest levels since the 1930s, is having a highly damaging impact on the \n\neconomies of the coffee producing countries and is jeopardizing future prospects for \n\nmaintaining production and quality, and \n\nRESOLVES: \n\n1. That the International Coffee Agreement 1983 as Extended shall be further \n\nextended for one additional year from 1 October 1992 to 30 September 1993. 2. To establish a Working Group, open to all Members, to carry out a wide-ranging \n\nreview of all proposals and ideas on future international cooperation on coffee matters \n\nand to report to the first ordinary session of the Council in coffee year 1991/92 and in \n\nany case not later than the first week of April 1992. On the basis of this report the \n\nCouncil shall decide on the negotiation of a new International Coffee Agreement with \n\na view to completing it not later than 31 December 1992. 3. That the International Coffee Agreement 1983 as Extended shall continue in \n\nforce as from 1 October 1992 in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this \n\nResolution among those Contracting Parties which have notified their acceptance, in \n\naccordance with their laws and regulations, of such further extension to the Secretary-\n\nGeneral of the United Nations by 25 September 1992, if on that date such Contracting \n\nParties represent at least 20 exporting Members holding a majority of the votes of the \n\nexporting Members, and at least 10 importing Members holding a majority of the votes \n\n\fof importing Members. The votes for this purpose shall be calculated as at 1 July 1992. Such notifications shall be signed by the Head of State or Government, or Minister for \n\nForeign Affairs, or made under full powers signed by one of the foregoing. In the case \n\nof an international organization, the notification shall be signed by a representative \n\nduly authorized in accordance with the rules of the Organization, or made under full \n\npowers signed by such a representative. 4. That a notification by a Contracting Party containing an undertaking to continue \n\nto apply provisionally, in accordance with its laws and regulations, the Agreement as \n\nExtended, which is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations not later \n\nthan 25 September 1992, shall be regarded as equal in effect to a notification of \n\nacceptance of the further extension of the International Coffee Agreement 1983 as \n\nExtended. Such Contracting Party shall enjoy all the rights and assume all the \n\nobligations of a Member. However, if formal notification of acceptance of the further \n\none-year extension of the International Coffee Agreement 1983 as Extended is not \n\nreceived by the Secretary-General of the United Nations by 31 March 1993 or such later \n\ndate as the Council may determine, such Contracting Party shall as of that date cease \n\nto participate in the Agreement. 5. That any Contracting Party to the International Coffee Agreement 1983 as \n\nExtended which has not made the notifications of acceptance provided for in \n\nparagraphs 3 and 4 of this Resolution, may accede to the Agreement by 31 March 1993 \n\nor such later date as the Council may determine on condition that on depositing its \n\ninstrument of accession such Contracting Party undertakes to fulfil all its previous \n\nobligations under the Agreement with retroactive effect from 1 October 1992. 6. That if the requirements for the continuation in force for a further period of one \n\nyear of the International Coffee Agreement 1983 as Extended have not been met in \n\n\f- ?-\n\naccordance with the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Resolution, those \n\nGovernments which have notified acceptance or provisional application of such further \n\nextension shall meet to decide: \n\n(a) whether the Agreement should continue in force among themselves, and, \n\nif so, to establish the conditions for the continued operation of the \n\nOrganization; or \n\n(b) whether to make arrangements for the liquidation of the Organization in \n\naccordance with the provisions of paragraph (4) of Article 68 of the \n\nAgreement. 7. To request the Executive Director to convey this Resolution to the Secretary-\n\nGeneral of the United Nations. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM (92) 116 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 11 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-140-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42459-1 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nLr2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f8a8bcb4-7483-400a-afef-3c322cdf5eb9", "title": "Introducing Eurobases : Online databases and services.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_stpl", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security,European Commission", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "European Commission,catalogue,database", "workIds": "PUB_CB7191364", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Commission", "catalogue", "database"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f8a8bcb4-7483-400a-afef-3c322cdf5eb9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_stpl"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7da73cde-65d0-4334-adbd-f9a5a7d5d374", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 840/92 of 1 April 1992 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "cosmetic product,metal furniture,statistical nomenclature,tariff nomenclature", "workIds": "celex:31992R0840,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0029_039", "eurovoc_concepts": ["cosmetic product", "metal furniture", "statistical nomenclature", "tariff nomenclature"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7da73cde-65d0-4334-adbd-f9a5a7d5d374", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d99bbc7a-6b1a-455d-a57a-aad5150bd404", "title": "Question No 23 by Mr EPHREMIDIS (H-0359/92) to European Political Cooperation: Unacceptable proposals by France and the UK to impose sanctions on Libya", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "EPHREMIDIS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "France,International Court of Justice,Libya,UN resolution,United Kingdom,United States,extradition,international convention,international sanctions,peacekeeping,penalty,terrorism", "workIds": "celex:91992H000359", "eurovoc_concepts": ["France", "International Court of Justice", "Libya", "UN resolution", "United Kingdom", "United States", "extradition", "international convention", "international sanctions", "peacekeeping", "penalty", "terrorism"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d99bbc7a-6b1a-455d-a57a-aad5150bd404", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2fcc1559-f42d-4268-9040-4e7a2524d453", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 829/92 of 1 April 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 598/86 concerning the target ceiling for the 1991/92 marketing year for imports into Spain of common wheat of bread-making quality", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-04-01", "subjects": "EU Member State,Spain,common wheat,import,supplementary trade mechanism", "workIds": "celex:31992R0829,oj:JOL_1992_087_R_0019_043", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU Member State", "Spain", "common wheat", "import", "supplementary trade mechanism"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2fcc1559-f42d-4268-9040-4e7a2524d453", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b6d5afdb-0b10-49a8-9cde-247044ed98d7", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 900/92 of 31 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3677/90 laying down measures to be taken to discourage the diversion of certain substances to the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "chemical product,customs inspection,drugs classification,export licence,international cooperation,narcotic", "workIds": "celex:31992R0900,oj:JOL_1992_096_R_0001_017", "eurovoc_concepts": ["chemical product", "customs inspection", "drugs classification", "export licence", "international cooperation", "narcotic"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b6d5afdb-0b10-49a8-9cde-247044ed98d7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2b0db115-a244-464f-a4ab-2e28d1a5a9ab", "title": "92/242/EEC: Council Decision of 31 March 1992 in the field of security of information systems", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "fmx4,html,pdfa1b,print,xhtml", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "action programme,advisory committee (EU),data protection,exchange of information,information policy,information system", "workIds": "celex:31992D0242,oj:JOL_1992_123_R_0019_024", "eurovoc_concepts": ["action programme", "advisory committee (EU)", "data protection", "exchange of information", "information policy", "information system"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2b0db115-a244-464f-a4ab-2e28d1a5a9ab", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["fmx4", "html", "pdfa1b", "print", "xhtml"], "text": "L_1992123EN. 01001901. xml\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n8. 5. 1992\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\nEN\n\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n\nL 123/19\n\n\n\n\n\nCOUNCIL DECISION\nof 31 March 1992\nin the field of security of information systems\n(92/242/EEC)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission\u00a0(1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament\u00a0(2),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee\u00a0(3),\nWhereas the Community has as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of the Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the Member States;\nWhereas information stored, processed and transmitted electronically plays an increasingly important role in economic and social activities;\nWhereas the advent of efficient global communications and the pervasive use of electronic handling of information emphasizes the need for adequate protection;\nWhereas the European Parliament has repeatedly stressed the importance of the security of information systems in its debates and resolutions;\nWhereas the Economic and Social Committee has emphasized the need to address issues relating to the security of information systems in Community forms of action, particularly in view of the impact of the completion of the internal market;\nWhereas forms of action at national, international and Community levels provide a good basis;\nWhereas there is a close link between telecommunications, information technology, standardization, the information market and research, development and technology (RDT) policies, as well as the work already undertaken in these areas by the Community;\nWhereas it is appropriate to ensure that efforts are concerted by building on existing national and international work and by promoting cooperation between the principal parties concerned; whereas it is therefore appropriate to proceed within the framework of a coherent action plan;\nWhereas the complexity of the security of information systems calls for the development of strategies to enable the free movement of information within the single market while ensuring the security of the use of information systems throughout the Community;\nWhereas it is the responsibility of each Member State to take into account the constraints imposed by security and public order;\nWhereas the responsibilities of the Member States in this area imply a concerted approach based on close collaboration with senior officials of the Member States;\nWhereas provision should be made for a plan of action for an initial period of twenty-four months and the setting-up of a Committee of Senior Officials with a long-term mandate to advise the Commission on forms of action in the area of security of information systems;\nWhereas an amount of ECU 12 million is considered necessary to implement the action for an initial period of twenty-four months; whereas for 1992, in the context of the present financial perspective, the amount estimated necessary is ECU 2 million;\nWhereas the amounts to be committed in order to finance the programme for the period following the 1992 budget year will form part of the existing Community financial framework,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nAn action in the field of the security of information systems is hereby adopted. It comprises:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\ndevelopment of overall strategies for the security of information systems (action plan) for an initial period of 24 months, and\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nsetting-up Senior Officials Group with a long-term mandate to advise the Commission on action to be undertaken in the field of the security of information systems, hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Committee\u2019. Article 2\n1. The Commission shall consult the Committee systematically on issues relating to the security of the information systems for the various activities carried out by the Community, in particular on the definition of work strategies and programmes. 2. The action plan, as indicated in the Annex, shall include preparatory work under the following themes:\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI. development of a strategic framework for the security of information systems;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nII. identification of user and service provider requirements for the security of information systems;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIII. solutions for immediate and interim needs of users, suppliers and service providers;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIV. development of specifications, standardization, evaluation and certification in respect of the security of information systems;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nV. technological and Operational developments in the security of information systems;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nVI. provision of security of information systems. Article 3\n1. The Community funds estimated as necessary for the execution of the action amount to ECU 12 million for the initial period, including ECU 2 million for 1992 within the 1988-1992 financial perspective. For the subsequent period of application of the programme, the amount will have to be included in the Community financial framework in force. 2. The budgetary authority shall determine the appropriations available for each financial year, taking into account the principles of sound management referred to in Article 2 of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities. Article 4\nAn evaluation of the progress achieved during the initial period shall be carried out for the Commission by a group of indepedent experts. This group's report, together with any comments by the Commission, shall be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council. Article 5\n1. The Commission shall be responsible for implementing the action. It shall be assisted by an advisory committee composed of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission. 2. The action plan shall be implemented in accordance with the objectives set out in Article 2 and updated where necessary. It shall set out the detailed objectives and types of actions to be undertaken, and the financial arrangements to be made for them. The Commission shall make calls for proposals on the basis of the action plan. 3. The action plan shall be implemented in close collaboration with the sector actors. It shall take into account, promote and complement the European and international standardization activities under way in this field. Article 6\n1. The procedure laid down in Article 7 shall apply to:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nmeasures relating to Community policy in the field of the security of information systems;\n\n\n\n\n2. The procedure laid down in Article 8 shall apply to:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nthe preparation and updating of the action plan referred to in Article 5;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nthe contents of the calls for proposals, the assessment of proposals and the estimated amount of the Community's contribution to measures where this amount exceeds ECU 200\u00a0000;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nthe cooperation in any activity under this Decision of non-Community organizations;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\narrangements for the dissemination, protection and exploitation of the results of the measures;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nthe measures to be undertaken to evaluate the action. 3. Where the amount of the Community contribution to the measures is less than, or equal to, ECU 200\u00a0000, the Commission shall consult the Committee on the measures to be taken and inform the Committee of the outcome of its assessment. Article 7\nThe representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft, within a time limit which the Chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking a vote. The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member State shall have the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes. The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by the Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which its opinion has been taken into account. Article 8\nThe representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a time limit which the Chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter. The opinion shall be delivered by the majority laid down in Article 148 (2) of the Treaty in the case of decisions which the Council is required to adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of the representatives of the Member States within the Committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that Article. The Chairman shall not vote. The Commission shall adopt the measures envisaged if they are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee. If the measures envisaged are not in accordance with the opinion of the Committee, of if no opinion is delivered, the Commission shall, without delay, submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken. The Council shall act by a qualified majority. If, on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of referral to it the Council has not acted, the proposed measures shall be adopted by the Commission, save where the Council has decided against the said measures by a simple majority. Done at Brussels, 31 March 1992. For the Council\n\n\nThe President\n\nVitor MARTINS\n\n\n\n\n(1)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No C 277, 5. 11. 1990, p. 18. (2)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No C 94, 13. 3. 1992. (3)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No C 159, 17. 6. 1991, p. 38. ANNEX\nSummary of action lines\nORIENTATIONS FOR AN ACTION PLAN IN THE FIELD OF THE SECURITY OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS\nINTRODUCTION\nThe action plan shall have as its objective the development of overall strategies aiming to provide users and producers of electronically stored, processed or transmitted information with appropriate protection of information systems against accidental or deliberate threats. The action plan shall take into account and complement the world-wide standardization activities under way in this field. It shall include the following lines of action:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\ndevelopment of a strategic framework for the security of information systems;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nidentification of user and service provider requirements for the security of information systems;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nsolutions for immediate and interim needs of users, suppliers and service providers;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\ndevelopment of specifications, standardization, evaluation and certification in respect of the security of information systems;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\ntechnological and operational developments in the security of information systems;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nprovision of security of information systems. The action plan shall be implemented by the Commission, in close association with related actions in Member States and in conjunction with related Community research and development actions. 1. Action line I \u2014 Development of a strategic framework for the security of information systems\n\n1. 1. Issue\n\nSecurity of information systems is recognized as a pervasive quality necessary in modern society. Electronic information services need a secure telecommunications infrastructure, secure hard- and software as well as secure usage and management. An overall strategy, considering all aspects of security of information systems, needs to be established, avoiding a fragmented approach. Any strategy for the security of information processed in an electronic form must reflect the wish of any society to operate effectively yet protect itself in a rapidly changing world. 1. 2. Objective\n\nA strategically orientated framework has to be established to reconcile social, economic and political objectives with technical, operational and legislative options for the Community in an international context. The sensitive balance between different concerns, objectives and constraints are to be found by sector actors working together in the development of a common perception and agreed strategy framework. These are the prerequisites for reconciling interests and needs both in policy-making and in industrial developments. 1. 3. Status and trends\n\nThe situation is characterized by growing awareness of the need to act. However, in the absence of an initiative to coordinate efforts, it seems very likely that dispersed efforts in various sectors will create a situation which will de facto be contradictory, creating progressively more serious legal, social and economic problems. 1. 4. Requirements, options and priorities\n\nSuch a shared framework would need to address and situate risk analysis and risk management concerning the vulnerability of information and related services, the alignment of laws and regulations associated with computer/telecommunications abuse and misuse, administrative infrastructures including security policies, and how these may be effectively implemented by various industries/disciplines, and social and privacy concerns (e. g. the application of identification, authentication, non-repudiation and possibly authorization schemes in a democratic environment). Clear guidance is to be provided for the development of physical and logical architectures for secure distributed information services, standards, guidelines and definitions for assured security products and services, pilots and prototypes to establish the viability of various administrative structures, architectures and standards related to the needs of specific sectors. Security awareness must be created in order to influence the attitude of the users towards an increased concern about security in information technology (IT). 2. Action line II \u2014 Identification of user and service provider requirements for the security of information systems\n\n2. 1. Issue\n\nSecurity of information systems is the inherent prerequisite for the integrity and trustworthiness of business applications, intellectual property and confidentiality. This leads inevitably to a difficult balance and sometimes choices, between a commitment to free trade and a commitment to securing privacy and intellectual property. These choices and compromises need to be based on a full appreciation of requirements and the impact of possible options for the security of information systems to respond to them. User requirements imply the security functionalities of information systems interdependent with technological, operational and regulatory aspects. Therefore, a systematic investigation of security requirements for information systems forms an essential part of the development of appropriate and effective measures. 2. 2. Objective\n\nEstablishing the nature and characteristics of requirements of users and service providers and their relation to security measures of information systems. 2. 3. Status and trends\n\nHitherto, no concerted effort has been undertaken to identify the rapidly evolving and changing requirements of the major actors for the security of information systems. Member States of the Community have identified the requirements for harmonization of national activities (especially of the \u2018IT security evaluation criteria\u2019). Uniform evaluation criteria and rules for mutual recognition of evaluation certificates are of major importance. 2. 4. Requirements, options and priorities\n\nAs a basis for a consistent and transparent treatment of the justified needs of the sector actors, it is considered necessary to develop an agreed classification of user requirements and its relation to the provision of security in information systems. It is also considered important to identify requirements for legislation, regulations and codes of practice in the light of an assessment of trends in service characteristics and technology, to identify alternative strategies for meeting the objectives by administrative, service, operational and technical provisions, and to assess the effectiveness, user-friendliness and costs of alternative security options and strategies for information systems for users, service providers and operators. 3. Action line III \u2014 Solutions for immediate and interim needs of users, suppliers and service providers\n\n3. 1. Issue\n\nAt present it is possible to protect adequately computers from unauthorized access from the outside world by \u2018isolation\u2019, i. e. by applying conventional organizational and physical measures. This applies also to electronic communications within a closed user group operating on a dedicated network. The situation is very different if the information is shared between user groups or exchanged via a public, or generally accessible, network. Neither the technology, terminals and services nor the related standards and procedures are generally available to provide comparable security for information systems in these cases. 3. 2. Objective\n\nThe objective has to be to provide, at short notice, solutions which can respond to the most urgent needs of users, service providers and manufacturers. This includes the use of common IT-security evaluation criteria. These should be conceived as open towards future requirements and solutions. 3. 3. Status and trends\n\nSome user groups have developed techniques and procedures for their specific use responding, in particular, to the need for authentication, integrity and non-repudiation. In general, magnetic cards or smart cards are being used. Some are using more or less sophisticated cryptographic techniques. Often this implied the definition of user-group specific \u2018authorities\u2019. However, it is difficult to generalize these techniques and methods to meet the needs of an open environment. ISO is working on OSI Information System Security (ISO DIS 7498-2) and CCITT in the context of X400. It is also possible to insert security segments into the messages. Authentication, integrity and non-repudiation are being addressed as part of the messages (EDIFACT) as well as part of the X400 MHS. At present, the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) legal framework is still at the stage of conception. The International Chamber of Commerce has published uniform rules of conduct for the exchange of commercial data via telecommunications networks. Several countries (e. g. Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the United States) have developed, or are developing, criteria to evaluate the trustworthiness of IT and telecommunication products and systems and the corresponding procedures for conducting evaluations. These criteria have been co-ordinated with the national manufacturers and will lead to an increasing number of reliable products and systems starting with simple products. The establishment of national organizations which will conduct evaluations and offer certificates will support this trend. Confidentiality provision is considered by most users as less immediately important. In the future, however, this situation is likely to change as advanced communication services and, in particular, mobile services will have become all-pervasive. 3. 4. Requirements, options and priorities\n\nIt is essential to develop as soon as possible the procedures, standards, products and tools suited to assure security both in information systems as such (computers, peripherals) and in public communications networks. A high priority should be given to authentication, integrity and non-repudiation. Pilot projects should be carried out to establish the validity of the proposed solutions. Solutions to priority needs on EDI are looked at in the TEDIS programme within the more general content of this action plan. 4. Action line IV \u2014 Development of specifications, standardization, evaluation and certification in respect of the security of information systems\n\n4. 1. Issue\n\nRequirements for the security of information systems are pervasive and as such common specifications and standards are crucial. The absence of agreed standards and specifications for IT security may present a major barrier to the advance of information-based processes and services throughout the economy and society. Actions are also required to accelerate the development and use of technology and standards in several related communication and computer network areas that are of critical importance to users, industry and administrations. 4. 2. Objective\n\nEfforts are required to provide a means of supporting and performing specific security functions in the general areas of OSI, ONP, ISDN/IBC and network management. Inherently related to standardization and specification are the techniques and approaches required for verification, including certification leading to mutual recognition. Where possible, internationally agreed solutions are to be supported. The development and use of computer systems with security functions should also be encouraged. 4. 3. Status and trends\n\nThe United States, in particular, has taken major initiatives to address the security of information systems. In Europe the subject is treated in the context of IT and telecommunications standardization in the context of ETSI and CEN/CENELEC in preparation of CCITT and ISO work in the field. In view of growing concern, the work in the United States is rapidly intensifying and both vendors and service providers are increasing their efforts in this area. In Europe, France, Germany and the United Kingdom have independently started similar activities, but a common effort corresponding to the United States is evolving only slowly. 4. 4. Requirements, options and priorities\n\nIn the security of information systems there is inherently a very close relationship between regulatory, operational, administrative and technical aspects. Regulations need to be reflected in standards, and provisions for the security of information systems need to comply in a verifiable manner to the standards and regulations. In several aspects, regulations require specifications which go beyond the conventional scope of standardization, i. e. include codes of practice. Requirements for standards and codes of practice are present in all areas of security of information systems, and a distinction has to be made between the protection requirements which correspond to the security objectives and some of the technical requirements which can be entrusted to the competent European standards bodies (CEN/CENELEC/ETSI). Specifications and standards must cover the subjects of security services of information systems (personal and enterprise authentication, non-repudiation protocols, legally acceptable electronic proof, authorization control), their communication services (image communication privacy, mobile communications voice and data privacy, data and image data-base protection, integrated services security), their communication and security management (public/private key system for open network operation, network management protection, service provider protection) and their certification (assurance criteria and levels, security assurance procedures for secure information systems). 5. Action line V \u2014 Technological and operational developments in the security of information systems\n\n5. 1. Issue\n\nSystematic investigation and development of the technology to permit economically viable and operationally satisfactory solutions to a range of present and future requirements for the security of information systems is a prerequisite for the development of the services market and the competitiveness of the European economy as a whole. Any technological developments in the security of information systems will have to include both the aspects of computer security and security of communications as most present-day systems are distributed systems, and access to such systems is through communications services. 5. 2. Objective\n\nSystematic investigation and development of the technology to permit economically viable and operationally satisfactory solutions to a range of present and future requirements for the security of information systems. 5. 3. Requirements, options and priorities\n\nWork on security of information systems would need to address development and implementation strategies, technologies, and integration and verification. The strategic R&D work would have to cover conceptual models for secure systems (secure against compromise, unauthorized modifications and denial of service), functional requirements models, risk models and architectures for security. The technology-orientated R&D work would have to include user and message authentication (e. g. through voice-analysis and electronic signatures), technical interfaces and protocols for encryption, access control mechanisms and implementation methods for provable secure systems. Verification and validation of the security of the technical system and its applicability would be investigated through integration and verification projects. In addition to the consolidation and development of security technology, a number of accompanying measures are required concerned with the creation, maintenance and consistent application of standards, and the validation and certification of IT and telecommunication products with respect to their security properties, including validation and certification of methods to design and implement systems. The third RDT Community Framework Programme might be used to foster cooperative projects at precompetitive and prenormative levels. 6. Action line VI \u2014 Provision of security of information systems\n\n6. 1. Issue\n\nDepending on the exact nature of the security features of information systems, the required functions will need to be incorporated at different parts of the information system including terminals/computers, services, network management to cryptographic devices, smart cards, public and private keys, etc. Some of these can be expected to be embedded in the hardware or software provided by vendors, while others may be part of distributed systems (e. g. network management), in the possession of the individual user (e. g. smart cards) or provided from a specialized organization (e. g. public/private keys). Most of the security products and services can be expected to be provided by vendors, service providers or operators. For specific functions, e. g. the provision of public/private keys, auditing authorization, there may be the need to identify and mandate appropriate organizations. The same applies for certification, evaluation and verification of quality of service which are functions which need to be addressed by organizations independent of the interests of vendors, service providers or operators. These organizations could be private, governmental, or licensed by government to perform delegated functions. 6. 2. Objective\n\nIn order to facilitate a harmonious development of the provision of security of information systems in the Community for the protection of the public and of business interests, it will be necessary to develop a consistent approach as to its provision of security. Where independent organizations will have to be mandated, their functions and conditions will need to be defined and agreed and, where required, embedded into the regulatory framework. The -objective would be to come to a clearly defined and agreed sharing of responsibilities between the different actors on a Community level as a prerequisite for mutual recognition. 6. 3. Status and trends\n\nAt present, the provision of security of information systems is well organized only for specific areas and limited to addressing their specific needs. The organization on a European level is mostly informal, and mutual recognition of verification and certification is not yet established outside closed groups. With the growing importance of the security of information systems, the need for defining a consistent approach to the provision of security for information systems in Europe and internationally is becoming urgent. 6. 4. Requirements, options and priorities\n\nBecause of the number of different actors concerned and the close relations to regulatory and legislative questions, it is particularly important to pre-agree on the principles which should govern the provision of the security of information systems. In developing a consistent approach to this question, one will need to address the aspects of identification and specification of functions requiring, by their very nature, the availability of some independent organizations (or inter-working organizations). This could include functions such as the administration of a public/private key system. In addition, it is required to identify and specify, at an early stage, the functions which in the public interest need to be entrusted to independent organizations (or interworking organizations). This could, for example, include auditing, quality assurance, verification, certification and similar functions"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c86259f5-720a-40c6-a1dd-8650ba0ab07c", "title": "Council Directive 92/24/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to speed limitation devices or similar speed limitation on- board systems of certain categories of motor vehicles", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "Community certification,motor vehicle,speed control,technical specification,vehicle parts", "workIds": "celex:31992L0024,oj:JOL_1992_129_R_0154_013", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Community certification", "motor vehicle", "speed control", "technical specification", "vehicle parts"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c86259f5-720a-40c6-a1dd-8650ba0ab07c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5fc8662c-3b78-41a3-82a1-da886a9da994", "title": "92/235/EEC: Commission Decision of 31 March 1992 on the clearance of certain Member States' accounts in respect of expenditure incurred in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 on agricultural products supplied as food aid (Only the Spanish, Danish, German, Greek, English, French, Italian and Dutch texts are authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "EU aid,agricultural product,closing of accounts,food aid", "workIds": "celex:31992D0235,oj:JOL_1992_121_R_0029_038", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "agricultural product", "closing of accounts", "food aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5fc8662c-3b78-41a3-82a1-da886a9da994", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d3adea33-d601-435b-a093-c9d1b1869788", "title": "92/225/EEC: Commission Decision of 31 March 1992 amending Commission Decision 87/257/EEC relating to the list of establishments in the United States of America approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "United States,fresh meat,health control,import (EU)", "workIds": "celex:31992D0225,oj:JOL_1992_108_R_0049_056", "eurovoc_concepts": ["United States", "fresh meat", "health control", "import (EU)"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d3adea33-d601-435b-a093-c9d1b1869788", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a113bd87-c8c3-4eb3-97e7-1af41bd91ce5", "title": "Council Directive 92/21/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the masses and dimensions of motor vehicles of category M1", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "Community certification,motor vehicle,technical standard,weight and size", "workIds": "celex:31992L0021,oj:JOL_1992_129_R_0001_010", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Community certification", "motor vehicle", "technical standard", "weight and size"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a113bd87-c8c3-4eb3-97e7-1af41bd91ce5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/31029967-cd09-414c-90f2-de293c3700f8", "title": "92/203/EEC: Council Decision of 31 March 1992 amending Decision 91/667/EEC on import quotas to be opened by the Member States in respect of State-trading countries in 1991 in order to take account of the dissolution of the Soviet Union", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "USSR,originating product,quantitative restriction,republic", "workIds": "celex:31992D0203,oj:JOL_1992_089_R_0031_035", "eurovoc_concepts": ["USSR", "originating product", "quantitative restriction", "republic"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/31029967-cd09-414c-90f2-de293c3700f8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c65b6c2c-ce4f-4ebc-8de6-7820b864cbed", "title": "Council Directive 92/26/EEC of 31 March 1992 concerning the classification for the supply of medicinal products for human use", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "classification,drug surveillance,health risk,medicinal product,pharmaceutical legislation,pharmacology", "workIds": "celex:31992L0026,oj:JOL_1992_113_R_0005_013", "eurovoc_concepts": ["classification", "drug surveillance", "health risk", "medicinal product", "pharmaceutical legislation", "pharmacology"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c65b6c2c-ce4f-4ebc-8de6-7820b864cbed", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/12ffdd7c-a86c-4cd0-bafc-4e93bcaccde1", "title": "Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "advertising,consumer protection,drug surveillance,medicinal product,pharmaceutical legislation,public health", "workIds": "celex:31992L0028,oj:JOL_1992_113_R_0013_015", "eurovoc_concepts": ["advertising", "consumer protection", "drug surveillance", "medicinal product", "pharmaceutical legislation", "public health"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/12ffdd7c-a86c-4cd0-bafc-4e93bcaccde1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/40ae0ae6-77bb-49b0-ba00-3f76a725eb6b", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 816/92 of 31 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "common organisation of markets,milk,milk product", "workIds": "celex:31992R0816,oj:JOL_1992_086_R_0083_065", "eurovoc_concepts": ["common organisation of markets", "milk", "milk product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/40ae0ae6-77bb-49b0-ba00-3f76a725eb6b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c3d940a6-a2a1-4a09-91bf-723053c259f1", "title": "92/223/EEC: Commission Decision of 31 March 1992 on the establishment of an addendum to the Community support framework for Community structural assistance in France (overseas departments) on the improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed (Only the French text is authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "French overseas department and region,Structural Funds,agricultural product,marketing", "workIds": "celex:31992D0223,oj:JOL_1992_108_R_0046_054", "eurovoc_concepts": ["French overseas department and region", "Structural Funds", "agricultural product", "marketing"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c3d940a6-a2a1-4a09-91bf-723053c259f1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/21763427-bf79-46bd-8570-e770fb304e0f", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 848/92 of 31 March 1992 amending Regulations (EEC) No 288/82, No 1765/82 and (EEC) No 3420/83 in order to establish the import arrangements for products originating in the independent States resulting from the former Soviet Union and suspend the application of certain quantitative restrictions to the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "USSR,Yugoslavia,originating product,republic", "workIds": "celex:31992R0848,oj:JOL_1992_089_R_0001_018", "eurovoc_concepts": ["USSR", "Yugoslavia", "originating product", "republic"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/21763427-bf79-46bd-8570-e770fb304e0f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/12370686-556d-4073-b570-e29b6520aad1", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 811/92 of 31 March 1992 fixing the export refunds on beef and veal and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "agricultural product nomenclature,beef,breeding animal,cattle,export refund", "workIds": "celex:31992R0811,oj:JOL_1992_086_R_0065_060", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural product nomenclature", "beef", "breeding animal", "cattle", "export refund"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/12370686-556d-4073-b570-e29b6520aad1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/17a5944e-30f2-4a51-bb0b-b329578caf2d", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 916/92 of 31 March 1992 on the transfer to Portugal of 382 000 tonnes of cereals held by various intervention agencies", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "Portugal,drought,fodder cereals,intervention agency,sale", "workIds": "celex:31992R0916,oj:JOL_1992_098_R_0004_016", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Portugal", "drought", "fodder cereals", "intervention agency", "sale"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/17a5944e-30f2-4a51-bb0b-b329578caf2d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e296d7ee-1262-4fa1-a399-33097d308b7b", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 778/92 of 27 March 1992 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on products falling within CN codes 6401, 6402 and 6403, originating in Indonesia, to which the preferential tariff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3831/90 apply", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "Indonesia,restoration of customs duties,tariff preference", "workIds": "celex:31992R0778,oj:JOL_1992_084_R_0015_022", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Indonesia", "restoration of customs duties", "tariff preference"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e296d7ee-1262-4fa1-a399-33097d308b7b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a082a513-9509-481d-a41d-f4fd059cfc68", "title": "92/241/EEC: Council recommendation of 31 March 1992 on child care", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#recommendation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "child care,ergonomics,family policy,gender equality,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:31992H0241,oj:JOL_1992_123_R_0016_023", "eurovoc_concepts": ["child care", "ergonomics", "family policy", "gender equality", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a082a513-9509-481d-a41d-f4fd059cfc68", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/481d7016-f6c2-42d7-b5c5-a07af9226dd0", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 786/92 of 31 March 1992 extending the 1991/92 marketing year in the milk and beef and veal sectors", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "beef,milk", "workIds": "celex:31992R0786,oj:JOL_1992_086_R_0001_035", "eurovoc_concepts": ["beef", "milk"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/481d7016-f6c2-42d7-b5c5-a07af9226dd0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4160e000-3343-4db2-b528-e8dfe9fad0e2", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 818/92 of 31 March 1992 establishing, for the period running from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the Community reserve for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "EU stock,milk,milk product", "workIds": "celex:31992R0818,oj:JOL_1992_086_R_0087_067", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU stock", "milk", "milk product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4160e000-3343-4db2-b528-e8dfe9fad0e2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7c351f45-1862-462b-9b4b-d803cd07fb9d", "title": "Council Directive 92/22/EEC of 31 March 1992 on safety glazing and glazing materials on motor vehicles and their trailers", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "Community certification,commercial vehicle,glass,motor vehicle,safety device", "workIds": "celex:31992L0022,oj:JOL_1992_129_R_0011_011", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Community certification", "commercial vehicle", "glass", "motor vehicle", "safety device"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7c351f45-1862-462b-9b4b-d803cd07fb9d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b4a38173-8548-42d6-b9b6-ba0058dad5e6", "title": "1992 : European year of safety, hygiene and health protection at work.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_losl", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "job security,legislation,occupational accident,occupational health,safety standard", "workIds": "PUB_CEBT91001", "eurovoc_concepts": ["job security", "legislation", "occupational accident", "occupational health", "safety standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b4a38173-8548-42d6-b9b6-ba0058dad5e6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_losl"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/84545a89-020d-4291-b45d-9ff46e649de6", "title": "Council Directive 92/25/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the wholesale distribution of medicinal products for human use", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "distributive trades,drug surveillance,marketing,medicinal product,pharmaceutical legislation,wholesale trade", "workIds": "celex:31992L0025,oj:JOL_1992_113_R_0001_012", "eurovoc_concepts": ["distributive trades", "drug surveillance", "marketing", "medicinal product", "pharmaceutical legislation", "wholesale trade"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/84545a89-020d-4291-b45d-9ff46e649de6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/956fa97b-d817-409a-ab1a-75ce81c4e9b8", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 814/92 of 31 March 1992 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3878/87 on the production aid for certain varieties of rice", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "production aid,rice", "workIds": "celex:31992R0814,oj:JOL_1992_086_R_0079_063", "eurovoc_concepts": ["production aid", "rice"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/956fa97b-d817-409a-ab1a-75ce81c4e9b8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/41bdc18e-cc4f-4b14-bb1d-fa01f37bec34", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) extending the 1991/92 marketing year in the milk and beef and veal sectors", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "beef,milk", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0126,comnat:COM_1992_0126_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["beef", "milk"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/41bdc18e-cc4f-4b14-bb1d-fa01f37bec34", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(92) 126 final \n\nBrussels,31 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC1 \n\nextending the 1991/92 marketing year in the milk \nand beef and veal sectors \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\f</ \n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nThe new milk year (1992/93) should commence on 1 April 1992. The new marketing year for beef and veal (1992/93) should commence on \n6 April 1992. The European Parliament has not yet delivered its opinion on the Commission's \nprice proposals for 1992/93. That opinion is expected in the week 11 to \n15 May 1992. For these reasons and in order to ensure that the CAP continues to operate, the \nCommission proposes that the Council extend the 1991/92 marketing year for milk \nand beef/veal until 31 May 1992 and publish the relevant regulation by \n1 April 1992 at the latest. This measure has no new financial impact. 3 \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) NO \n\nOf \n\n1992 \n\nextending the 1991/92 marketing year in the milk \nand beef and veal sectors \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic community. Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the \n\ncommon organization of the market in milk and milk products (*), as last \n\namended by Regulation (EEC) No 374/92 <2), and in particular Article 2 thereof, \n\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the \n\ncommon organization of the market in beef and veal (-*), as last amended by \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 1628/91 (4), and in particular Article 4 thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nWhereas it has proved necessary to reconsider all the problems relating to the \n\nfixing of prices for the forthcoming marketing year, which will involve delay in \n\nthe fixing of those prices; whereas the 1991/92 marketing year must therefore be \n\nextended in the milk and beef and veal sectors until 31 May 1992, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\n1. The 1991/92 milk year shall end on 31 May 1992 and the 1992/93 milk year \n\nshall begin on 1 June 1992. (1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13. (2) OJ No L 41, 18. 2. 1992, p. 9. (3) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 24. (4) OJ No L 150, 15. 6. 1991, p. 16. 1 \n\n2. The 1991/92 marketing year for beef and veal shall end on 31 May 1992 and \n\nthe 1992/93 marketing year shall begin on 1 June 1992. Article 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the \n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all \n\nMember states. Done at Brussels, \n\nMarch 1992 \n\nFor the Council \n\nThe President \n\n\fISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 126 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-138-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42441-9 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nLr2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1628b437-dfc1-412c-831d-c85c46703af4", "title": "Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "Community certification,commercial vehicle,motor vehicle,pneumatic tyre", "workIds": "celex:31992L0023,oj:JOL_1992_129_R_0095_012", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Community certification", "commercial vehicle", "motor vehicle", "pneumatic tyre"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1628b437-dfc1-412c-831d-c85c46703af4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/902b2a1d-a441-478b-990d-868c804b1b7a", "title": "Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the minimum safety and health requirements for improved medical treatment on board vessels", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "crew,health care,medical device,medicinal product,occupational health,vessel", "workIds": "celex:31992L0029,oj:JOL_1992_113_R_0019_016", "eurovoc_concepts": ["crew", "health care", "medical device", "medicinal product", "occupational health", "vessel"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/902b2a1d-a441-478b-990d-868c804b1b7a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e112d726-025d-46e8-9281-3ff46198e973", "title": "Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "consumer protection,drug surveillance,labelling,medicinal product,pharmaceutical legislation,preparation for market", "workIds": "celex:31992L0027,oj:JOL_1992_113_R_0008_014", "eurovoc_concepts": ["consumer protection", "drug surveillance", "labelling", "medicinal product", "pharmaceutical legislation", "preparation for market"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e112d726-025d-46e8-9281-3ff46198e973", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b2c0db8c-daeb-43ec-afa9-fedc4d5c9ccf", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) concerning the organization of a survey of labour costs in industry and the services sector", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "EU statistics,sample survey,secondary sector,tertiary sector,wage cost", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0125,comnat:COM_1992_0125_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU statistics", "sample survey", "secondary sector", "tertiary sector", "wage cost"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b2c0db8c-daeb-43ec-afa9-fedc4d5c9ccf", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "u. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMVIUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 125 final \n\nBrussels, 31 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION fEEC) \n\nconcerning the organization of a survey of labour costs \nin industry and the services sector \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\npO \n\nft vl \n\n3W \n\nI* - '-\n\nP \n\n38Kf!i \n\n\f1 -\n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nThe Commission cannot carry out certain tasks assigned to it by the Treaty establishing the \nEuropean Economic Community, in particular those set out in Articles 2, 3, 117, 188, 122 and \n123 thereof, without access to data on labour costs and employees' incomes in the Community \nproviding a valid basis for comparison between countries. For this reason, a series of specific \nCommunity^surveys on labour costs in industry '*', wholesale and retail distribution, banking and \ninsurance \"' has been carried out since 1959 in pursuance of Council Regulations. These surveys \nwere conducted by the Commission of the European Communities in cooperation with the \nNational Statistical Institutes and the ministries of labour in the Member States. The comparative analysis of the level and composition of labour costs in the Member States \nrequires that data be obtained on the basis of uniform survey conditions and definitions. These \nconditions are met by the Community surveys on labour costs, which to date constitute the sole \nEuropean source of statistics on wages and salaries providing a valid basis for comparison. This is \nwhy the survey results published by Eurostat are valued highly by the Commission departments, \neconomic and social decision-makers and researchers. The Commission's activities in various domains require up-to-date figures on wage and salary \ncosts. Eurostat, in cooperation with the competent authorities in the Member States, has worked \nout methods of updating the main results of the surveys on labour costs. However, since \nenterprises' expenditure on wages, salaries and related employers' contributions is subject to \nsubstantial change, such updating can only furnish valid results in the years directly following the \nsurvey; thereafter, it is necessary to repeat the survey. (1) \n\n(2) \n\nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \nRegulat \n\non No. 10 (OJ No. 56, 31. 8. 1960, p. 1199/60) \non No. 14 (OJ No. 55, 16. 8. 1961, p. 1054/61) \non No. 28 (OJ No. 41, 28. 5. 1962, p. 1277/62) \non No. 151 (OJ No. 133, 13. 12. 1962, p. 2841/62) \non No. 101/66/EEC (OJ No. 134, 22. 7. 1966, p. 2540/66) \non (EEC) No. 1899/68 (OJ No. L 289, 29. 11. 1968, p. 4) \non (EEC) No. 2259/71 (OJ No. L 238, 23. 10. 1971, p. 1) \non (EEC) No. 328/75 (OJ No. L 37, 12. 2. 1975, p. 1) \non (EEC) No. 494/78 (OJ No. L 68, 10. 3. 1978, p. 1) \non (EEC) No. 1596/81 (OJ No. L 159, 17. 6. 1981, p. 1) \non (EEC) No. 3149/83 (OJ No. L 309, 10. 11. 1983, p. 2) \non (EEC) No. 1612/88 (OJ No. L 145, 11. 6. 1988, p. 1) \non (EEC) No. 2053/69 (OJ No. L 263, 21. 10. 1969, p. 8) \non (EEC) No. 3192/73 (OJ No. L 326, 27. 11. 1973, p. 1) \non (EEC) No. 494/78 (OJ No. L 68, 10. 3. 1978, p. 1) \non (EEC) No. 1596/81 (OJ No. L 159, 17. 6. 1981, p. 1) \non (EEC) No. 3149/83 (OJ No. L 309, 10. 11. 1983, p. 2) \non (EEC) No. 1612/88 (OJ No. L 145, 11. 6. 1988, p. 1) \n\n\f4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. - 2-\n\nFor this reason, Eurostat's Working Party on Wage Statistics considered at the time that labour \ncost surveys should be repeated every three years. In the course of Council discussions on the \nRegulation relating to the 1984 survey, it was decided to extend the interval between surveys from \nthree to four years, so that the subsequent survey was carried out with reference to 1988. It is \ndesirable to maintain this periodicity and to plan the next survey with reference to 1992. The labour cost surveys have gradually increased the range of economic activities covered. Initially, only industry was studied, while later surveys also covered wholesale and retail \ndistribution, banking and insurance. Since the end of the 1960s, the scope of the survey has not \nchanged. However, greater account needs to be taken of the growth in employment in the services \nsector. For this reason, the Working Party on Wage Statistics considers it necessary to extend the \nsurvey to the following sectors: hotels and restaurants, activities of travel agencies and tour \noperators, real estate, renting and services to business. This choice reflects the current priorities \nin improving services statistics. In order to lighten the burden on enterprises and on the budgets of the European Communities and \nthe Member States, it is not planned to make an exhaustive survey of all enterprises, but to \nproceed on the basis of a representative sample. In addition, to facilitate the enterprises' task, the \nWorking Party has agreed to cease collecting data on the basis of employee-category (manual \nworker, non-manual worker), \nthe survey-\nfacilitating \nquestionnaires and improving the timescale for publication of the results. task of replying \n\nthereby \n\nthe \n\nto \n\nAs with the 1972, 1975, 1978, 1981, 1984 and 1988 surveys the survey is to cover local units or \nenterprises with at least ten employees. The survey will therefore be comparable with those \nconducted in previous years, and with other Community wage and salary statistics (harmonized \nstatistics on earnings). The planned survey will furnish detailed statistical data on employers' expenditure on wages, \nsalaries and related contributions, as well as on hours worked. The Working Party on Wage Statistics has emphasized the need to take a decision on conducting \nthis survey as soon as possible, so that the enterprises and establishments to be included in the \nsample can take appropriate measures to reply to the questionnaires from the beginning of 1992. 10. The smooth functioning of the surveys requires the Community to contribute towards the cost of \ncarrying them out and of processing the results. Because the scope of the survey has been \nextended to services sectors not covered in the past, because it is also to be conducted in the new \nGerman territories and because changes have had to be made to the survey management \nprogrammes, an increase in the Community contribution to the survey costs should be considered. 11. To this end, the Commission submits the following draft Regulation to the Council. Proposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No \n\nOf \n\nconcerning the organization of a survey of labour costs \nin industry and the services sector \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic \nCommunity and in particular Article 213 thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the Commission proposal, \n\nWhereas, in order to fulfil the tasks assigned to it by the Treaty, \nparticularly Articles 2, 3, 117, 118, 122 and 123, the Commission must \nhave information regarding labour costs and workers' incomes in the \nMember States; \n\nWhereas the statistical data available in the Member States do not \npermit valid comparisons, particularly because of divergences in \nnational legislations, regulations and administrative practices; \nwhereas surveys must therefore be conducted and processed on the basis \nof standard definitions and methods; \n\nWhereas the best way of ascertaining the level, breakdown and \ndevelopment of labour costs and workers' income is to carry out \nspecific surveys, as was most recently done in 1989 in implementation \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1612/88(*), on the basis of accounting data for \n1988; \n\nWhereas, because of the major changes in the level and structure of \nexpenditure by enterprises on wages and related employers* \ncontributions, a new survey must be carried out based on accounting \ndata for 1992 in industry, trade, banking and insurance, in order to \nupdate the results of the previous survey; \n\n(1) O J N ol 14S of 11. 6. 1966, p. 1. - 4-\n\nWhereas, because of the changes in the economic structures and the \nunemployment situation in the Member States the range of economic \nactivities covered must be extended, particularly in the services \nsector; \n\nWhereas, because of the size of the field covered, the survey must be \nbased on a sample in order to avoid placing an excessive burden on the \nenterprises and the budgets of the European Communities and the Member \nStates, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\nAs part of its periodical surveys on labour costs and workers' incomes, \nthe Commission shall carry out a survey on labour costs in industry and \ncertain services sectors in 1993 on the basis of accounting data for \n1992. Article 2 \n\nThe survey shall cover enterprises or local units with at least 10 \nemployees carrying out the activities delimited and defined in sections \nC, D, E, F, G, H and K, divisions 65 and 66, and group 63. 3 of the \nClassification of Economic Activities in the European Communities (NACE \nRev. l), apart from the exceptions indicated in Annex I. The survey shall be based on a sample. Article 3 \n\nEmployers must supply, for the enterprises or local units in the \nsample, the information necessary for determining the labour costs on \nthe basis of accounting data for 1992 under the conditions set out \nbelow. The survey shall cover: \n\nArticle 4 \n\na) wage costs, including bonuses and ex gratia payments, and all \n\nancillary costs including in particular contributions by employers \nto social security schemes, any supplementary voluntary schemes and \nother social expenditure, including the cost of vocational training \nand any taxes or subsidies directly relating to labour costs; \n\nb) the total staff employed by the enterprises or local units; \n\nc) working hours. -f-\n\nArticle 5 \n\nData shall be collected by the statistical institutes of the Member \nStates, which shall draw up appropriate questionnaires. The Commission \nshall determine the list of characteristics and definitions to be used \nfor the surveys. It shall also, under the same conditions, stipulate \nthe starting and closing dates for the survey and deadlines for \nanswering the questionnaires. The Member States shall ensure that the parties responsible for \nsupplying information provide accurate and complete answers to the \nquestionnaires within the specified time limits. Article 6 \n\nThe statistical departments of the Member States shall process the \nreplies to the questionnaires. After verification and in accordance \nwith the utilization programme defined by the Commission, they shall \ntransmit the results of the survey to the Commission, including the \ndata declared confidential by the Member States pursuant to national \nlegislation or practice concerning statistical confidentiality. The results shall be broken down by sector of economic activity \naccording to NACE Rev. l, by region and by size category of enterprise \nor local unit. Article 7 \n\nThe individual data supplied in the survey may be used for statistical \npurposes only. It is forbidden to use them for any other purposes, \nparticularly tax purposes, or to communicate them to third parties. Article 8 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following the date of \nits publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly \napplicable in all Member States. For the Council, \n\nPresident \n\n\f-i-\n\nANNEX I \n\nExceptions to the field covered by the survey \n\n1. For all the Member States: class 65. 11. 2. For Germany: section H, divisions 50, 70 and 71 and group 63. 3. Divisions 72, 73 and 74 will be excluded for the territory of the \nformer German Democratic Republic and East Berlin. 3. For Greece: section F, group 51. 1 and class 51. 57. 4. For Ireland: section H. - 4 --\n\nDG-34 Eurostat \n\nFINANCIAL STATEMENT No 1 \nSECTION 1: FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS \n\n1. Title of operation \n\nAction relating to the sectoral statistical programmes connected \nwith the provisions of the Single European Act. Organization of a survey of labour costs in industry and services \nin 1992. 2. Budget headings involved \n\n- \n- \n\n- \n\nFinancial prospects - 4. other policies \nSub-section B-5. Consumers, internal market, industry and \ninnovation \nChapter B5-60. Statistical information policy connected with \nthe completion of the internal market and in support of \nCommunity policies \nLine B5-6000. Operating appropriations \nLine B8-5900. Operations support appropriations \n\n3. Legal basis \n\nArticle 213 of the Treaty \n\n4. Description of operation \n\n4. 1. Specific objectives of operation \n\nWork to standardize surveys, studies and analyses intended to \nproduce a set of Community statistical information concerning: \n\n- social policy, \n\nfor a total of thirty component projects of the European \nCommission's statistical programme 1989-1992, including this \nproject, which involves a survey of labour costs in industry \nand services. 4. 2. Duration \n\nOne-off operation. 4. 3. Target population \n\nThe beneficiaries of this operation are: the Community \ninstitutions, the governments of the Member States, economic \nand social decision makers in the Member States, research \ninstitutes, universities and the media. Classification of expenditure or of revenue \n\n5. 1. Non-compulsory expenditure \n5. 2. DA/NDA \n5. 3. Type of revenue involved: NONE \n\nType of expenditure or revenue? \n\n6. 1. 100% subsidy \n\nNO - The Commission's contribution only represents a fraction \nof the order of 15 to 30% of the real cost of collecting the \ndata, because the Commission's statistical activity is \ndevolved to a large extent; nevertheless, the expenditure is \nessential to encourage the standardization of data collection \nand compilation and their transmission to Eurostat. 6. 2. Subsidy for joint financing with other sources in the public \n\nand/or private sector \n\nYES - Public sector joint financing (budgets of the national \nstatistical services). 6. 3. Interest subsidy \n\nNO \n\n6. 4. Other \n\nNONE \n\n6. 5. Should the operation prove an economic success, is there \n\nprovision for all or part of the Community contribution to be \nreimbursed? \n\nNO \n\n6. 6. Will the proposed operation cause any change in the level of \n\nrevenue? \n\nNO \n\n\f-? -\n\n7. Financial impact on appropriations for operations (part B of the \n\nbudget) \n\n7. 1. Method of calculating total cost of operation: \n\nTotal cost of operation in 1993: 1. 31 million ecu \n\nof which: \n\n- \n\n- \n\ncontribution to Member States (survey, \ncollection and processing): \nProvision of services (studies, \nanalyses, data management): \n\n1. 22 million ecu \n\n-\n\n7. 2. Proportion of mini-budget in total \n\ncost of operation: \n\n0. 09 million ecu \n\n7. 3. Indicative schedule of commitment and \n\npayment appropriations \n\nNot applicable \n\n8. What anti-fraud measures are planned in the proposal for the \n\noperation? \n\n- \n\n- \n\nPayments in respect of any contracts and agreements into which \nthe Commission enters are only made on the basis of the \nresults obtained. The statistical information is considered an objective means \nof evaluating Community action programmes and thus contributes \nto consolidating the mechanism for fraud prevention. SECTION 2: ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE (part A of the budget) \n\n1. Will the proposed operation involve an increase in the number of \n\nCommission staff? If so, how many? \n\nNo \n\n2. Indicate the amount of staff and administrative expenditure \n\ninvolved in the proposed operation. Explain the method of \ncalculation. Unit of the DG taking part in the work: (as per establishment plan \nof 01. 01. 91): Unit E2 - Living and working conditions. Staff: 11 as \nof 01. 01. 1991, of which 2 on the \"Survey of Labour Costs\" project. 0. 5% of total DG 34 staff (389 as of 01. 01. 1991) are engaged on the \n\"Survey of Labour Costs\" project. -4$ \n\n-\n\nSECTION 3: ELEMENTS OF COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS \n\n1. Objectives and coherence with financial programming \n\n1. 1. Specific objective(s) of proposed operation: \n\n- Statistics in the context of social policy: \n\nEarnings, employment, vocational training and syntheses of \nsocial statistics. 1. 2. Is the operation incorporated in the financial programming of \n\nthe DG for the years concerned? \n\nYES - Note 476 of 8 February 1991 - DG 34 \n\n1. 3. To which broader objective defined in the DG's financial \nprogramming does the objective of the proposed operation \ncorrespond? \n\nObjective No 1 \n\n2. Grounds for the operation \n\n2. 1. Reasons for choosing this operation rather than an alternative \n\nwhich would achieve the same objectives. This operation achieves four results: \n\n- It provides the Institutions with the quantitative elements \n\non the basis of which any action programme pursuant to \nArticle 3 (2) of the Financial Regulation can be drawn up, \nmonitored and evaluated: \"it therefore contributes to more \neffective and pertinent use of the Community budget\". - It provides the national administrations with comparable \nstatistics on all of the Member States, allowing them to \nevaluate and monitor the development of Community policy \nprogrammes. - It provides political, economic and social decision makers \n\nin the Community with figures on which to base and evaluate \ntheir decisions in their respective fields of activity: it \nis therefore an essential part of the European information \nmarket. - It provides the scientific community with the information \nnecessary to improve the analysis and understanding of \neconomic and social life in the Community. - \u00ab-\n\na) cost: \n\nThe bulk of the financing for this operation comes from \nthe Member States (section 1, paragraph 6. 1. ), which \nhave a well-established structure for collecting and \ncompiling data. If the Commission had to finance this \nprogramme entirely, the cost would be extremely high \nand the product would certainly be less reliable. b) spin-off effect: \n\n- \n\nThe results of the operation contribute to improving \nthe statistical information used in work related to \nsocial policy, economic cohesion and convergence in the \ninternal market. The collection of statistical information is based on a \nhighly devolved structure, within which the national \nsystems are responsible at the level of each Member \nState. The Community statistical programme becomes an \nintegral part of the national statistical programmes \nand thus contributes to creating a European statistical \narea. c) multiplier effect \n\n- \n\nMultiplier effect in tne direction of a European \nstatistical area and therefore towards greater \nintegration of the national statistical systems at \nCommunity level. 3. Monitoring and evaluation of the operation \n\n3. 1. Performance indicators selected: \n\nMonitoring of operational objectives connected with the \nprovisions of the Single European Act using the ? \n\n3. 2. Annual progress report on programme: \n\nImplementation of the statistical programme is constantly \nchecked against a monitoring file (TBPS) which defines the \noperational objectives and resources needed for each project \n( + 190) on the basis of the planning-execution principle. At \nthe beginning of each year, Eurostat prepares a report on the \nprogramme's progress during the previous year. This report is \nin three parts: \n\n- the first summarizes the main achievements of the year in \n\npolicy terms; \n\n- the second describes the objective laid down and the \n\nresults obtained for each project; \n\nthe third provides statistics on the use made of human, \nbudgetary, computer and administrative resources during the \nprevious year. - iL-\n\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM \n\nIMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESSES \nwith special reference to small and medium-sized \nenterprises (SMEs) \n\nTitle of the proposal: Proposal for a Council Regulation on the \n\norganization of a survey of labour costs in \nindustry and the services sector \n\nReference No of the document: \n\nThe proposal \n\n1. Taking account of the principle of subsidiarity, why is Community \nlegislation necessary in this area, and what are its principal \naims? \n\nThe aim of the survey is to obtain comparable data on the levels \nand structures of labour costs in the Member States for the purpose \nof implementing Articles 2, 3, 117, 118, 122 and 123 of the Treaty \nestablishing the European Community. The statistical information available in the Member States is an \ninadequate basis for valid comparisons, for reasons which include, \nin particular, the differences between their legislation and \nadministrative practices. The only way to ensure the comparability \nof statistics in this domain is to carry out surveys and exploit \nthe results on the basis of uniform definitions and common methods. The survey of labour costs is presently the only statistical source \nin the field of remuneration to provide a regular flow of \ncomparable data on the detailed composition of labour costs in the \nMember States. This characteristic means that the survey is \nintensively used by the Commission's departments, both sides of \nindustry and researchers as a source of statistical information. Impact on business \n\n2. Who will be affected by the proposal? \n\n- which sectors of business? \n\nThe survey covers undertakings in sections C, D, E, F, G, H, K, \ndivisions 65, 66 and group 63. 3 of the General Industrial \nClassification of Economic Activities within the European \nCommunities NACE (Rev. 1). -n -\n\n\u2014which sizes of business (what is the concentration of small and \nmedium-sized firms)? \n\nThe statistical units used for the survey are the local unit with \n10 and more employees in the industrial domain and the undertaking \nwith 10 and more employees in the services domain. Results are to be obtained for the following size classes: \n\nunits with 10-19 employees \nunits with 20-49 employees \nunits with 50-99 employees \nunits with 100-199 employees \nunits with 200-499 employees \nunits with 500-999 employees \nunits with 1000 and more employees \n\nThe proposed survey will differ from the 1988 survey in that the \nsize class of \"units with 10-49 employees\" used in 1988 will be \nsplit into two size classes containing \"units with 10-19 employees\" \nand \"units with 20-49 employees\". The survey will not include units with less than 10 employees. To reduce the burden on undertakings and NSIs, the survey will be \ncarried out by sampling. The sampling plans will be established by \nthe NSIs which will, in general, use different sampling fractions \nfor the different size classes. - are there particular geographical areas of the Community where \nthese businesses are found? \n\nWhat will business have to do to comply with the proposal? \n\nUndertakings selected as respondents will be obliged to supply the \ninformation required for the determination of labour costs, and \nthis information must be true and complete and forwarded in time to \nmeet the deadline fixed in the Regulation. What economic effects is the proposal likely to have? \n\n- on employment? \n\nNo effect \n\n- on investment and the creation of new businesses? No effect \n\n- on the competitive position of busineses? \n\nNo effect \n\n\f-4-\n\n5. Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific \nsituation of small and medium-sized firms (reduced or different \nrequirements, etc)? \n\nYes. Units with less than 10 employees will be excluded from the \nfield, so as to reduce the number of units from which survey data \nneed to be collected. Consultation \n\n6. List the organizations which have been consulted about the proposal \n\nand outline their main views. Representatives of UNICE and the CES attended the meetings of \nEurostat Working Group on Wages held on 27 September and 19-20 \nNovember 1991 to prepare the survey and indicated that they were in \nfavour. But the UNICE representative had doubts about the \npossibility of including units with less than 10 employees. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 125 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n04 10 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-136-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42423-0 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/80d8359f-20d8-445d-837a-4ed649a4b7c7", "title": "Industrial applications of neural networks : project ANNIE handbook.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media", "date": "1992-03-31", "subjects": "EU programme,artificial intelligence,information processing,neurobiology,new technology,research and development,research report", "workIds": "PUB_EUNA14679", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU programme", "artificial intelligence", "information processing", "neurobiology", "new technology", "research and development", "research report"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/80d8359f-20d8-445d-837a-4ed649a4b7c7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cf8fb577-7935-47e7-b6a8-cf6f3ce48965", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 862/92 of 30 March 1992 opening, allocating and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for prepared or preserved sardines, originating in Morocco, for the period 1 March to 30 April 1992", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Morocco,preserved product,sea fish,tariff quota", "workIds": "celex:31992R0862,oj:JOL_1992_091_R_0005_016", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Morocco", "preserved product", "sea fish", "tariff quota"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cf8fb577-7935-47e7-b6a8-cf6f3ce48965", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d1acb2d6-4b07-4fb0-a7ca-753d38268e68", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) on the transfer to Portugal of 382 000 tonnes of cereals held by various intervention agencies", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Portugal,drought,fodder cereals,intervention agency,sale", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0132,comnat:COM_1992_0132_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Portugal", "drought", "fodder cereals", "intervention agency", "sale"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d1acb2d6-4b07-4fb0-a7ca-753d38268e68", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 132 final \n\nBrussels, 30 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\non the transfer to Portugal of 382 000 tonnes of cereals held by \nvarious intervention agencies \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\nm \n\nJSP? \n\nHP \n\n\f\u20ac \n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nThe weather in Portugal, where there has been a persistent drought \nsince autumn 1991, has caused a shortage of forage which can make \nlivestock farmers sell their animals early, causing a loss of income. The 1992 cereal. harvest in Portugal will also be affected by this \ndrought, especially the wheat crop. As a remedy to this, it is proposed to make available to Portugal a \ntotal of 382. 000 tonnes of Danish, German, Spanish, and French \nintervention stocks. These would be transferred to Portugal, broken \ndown between 200. 000 t. of wheat, of which 60. 000 t. of forage quality, \n170. 000 t. of barley, and 12. 000 t. of durum wheat. COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No \n\nof \n\non the transfer to Portugal of 382 000 tonnes of cereals held by \nvarious intervention agencies \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \n\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the \n\ncommon organization of the market in cereals*1*, as last amended by Regulation \n\n(EEC) No 3577/90<2>, and In particular Article 7(5) thereof, \n\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the \n\nfinancing of the common agricultural policy*3), as last amended by Regulation \n\n(EEC) No 2048/88<4>, and in particular Article 3(2) thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nWhereas the drought in Portugal in recent months has led to a shortage of fodder \n\nwhich may induce stockfarmers to sell their livestock before the proper time, \n\nwith possible adverse affects on their incomes; \n\n(1) 0J No L 281, 1. 11. 1975, p. 1. (2) 0J No L 353, 17. 12. 1990, p. 23. (3) 0J No L 98, 28. 4. 1970, p. 3. (4) OJ No L 185, 15. 7. 1988, p. 1. Whereas this shortage can be offset if the stockfarmors use 230 000 tonnes of \n\nfeed grain; \n\n- 2 -\n\n4 \n\nWhereas, moreover, wheat production in 1992 Is also affected by widespread \n\ndrought; whereas this situation may result in difficulties of supply on the \n\nPortuguese market; \n\nWhereas the abovementioned difficulties may be overcome by a transfer of \n\nCommunity cereals available at the intervention agencies of the other Member \n\nStates; \n\nWhereas the Portuguese intervention agency resells transferred stocks in \n\naccordance with Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1836/82 of 7 July 1982 laying down \n\nthe procedure and conditions for the disposal of cereals held by intervention \nagencies*5*, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3043/91*6*; whereas, \n\nhowever, in view of the foreseeable rise in market prices in Portugal, the \n\ncereals transferred should be resold on the Portuguese market at prices \n\npermitting disposal on satisfactory price terms; \n\nWhereas certain detailed rules should be laid down on takeover of the cereals and \n\ntransfer of responsibility for it; \n\nWhereas provisions should be laid down on the entry in accounts of this operation \n\nin accordance with the mechanisms laid down In Council Regulation (EEC) No \n\n1883/78 of 2 August 1978 laying down general rules for the financing of \n\ninterventions by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guarantee \nSection*7*, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2050/88*8*; \n\n(5) OJ No L 202, 9. 7. 1982, p. 23. (6) OJ No L 325, 27. 11. 1991, p. 5. (7) 0J No L 216, 5. 8. 1978, p. 1. (8) 0J No L 185, 15. 7. 1988, p. 6. HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION \n\n- 3 -\n\nArticle 1 \n\n1. 382 OOO tonnes of cereals held by the Danish, German, Spanish and French \n\nintervention agencies shall be transferred to Portugal in accordance with the \n\nfollowing breakdown: \n\nDenmark: \n\n30 000 tonnes of common fodder wheat, \n\nGermany: \n\n30 000 tonnes of common fodder wheat, \n\nSpain: \n\n170 000 tonnes of barley and 12 000 tonnes of durum wheat, \n\nFrance: \n\n140 000 tonnes of common wheat of breadmaking quality. 2. The Portuguese intervention agency shall take over the products referred to \n\nin paragraph 1 before 1 May 1992 and arrange for their transport to Portugal \n\nand their disposal in mainland Portugal before dates to be determined in \n\naccordance with the procedure referred to In paragraph 5. 3. The cereals in question shall be resold as they arrive in Portugal. 4. Contracts for transport as referred to in paragraph 2 shall be awarded by \n\nintervention to tender. The cereals must be mobilized under the most \n\nfavourable transport conditions. 5. Detailed rules for the application of this Regulation covering in particular \n\ntransport as referred to in paragraph 1, the schedule of invitations to \n\ntender for the cereals in question and the minimum selling price to be met \n\nshall be adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 26 \n\nof Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75. - 4 -\n\nArticle 2 \n\n1. The intervention agencies referred to In Article 1(1) shall debit the \n\naccounts referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1883/78 with the \n\nquantities of cereals transferred, valued at zero. 2. The Portuguese intervention agency shall credit the accounts referred to in \n\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1883/78 with the quantities of cereals of \n\nwhich it has taken delivery, valued at zero, and shall value them at the end \n\nof each month at ECU 52/t in the case of common wheat of breadmaking quality, \n\nECU 51/t in the case of barley and fodder wheat and ECU 67/t in the case of \n\ndurum wheat. Those amounts shall be converted into national currency at the \n\nagricultural conversion rate applying at the beginning of the 1991/92 \n\nmarketing year. 3. The costs of transport of the products referred to in Article 1(1) shall be \n\nentered in the accounts referred to in paragraph 2. Article 3 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the \n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all \n\nMember States. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council, \n\nThe President \n\n\fFICHE FINANCIERE \n\n1. LIGNE BUDGETAIRE :D\u00e9penses : 101 \n\nRessources propres : 100 \n\n> \n\nDATE : \n\nI \n\nCREDITS :2. 490 MioECU \n\n1. 369,5 MioECU \n\n2. INTITULE DE LA MESURE : \nTransfert au Portugal de 382. 000 tonnes de c\u00e9r\u00e9ales d\u00e9tenues par diff\u00e9rents orga \nnismes d'intervention. 3. BASE JURIDIQUE: R\u00e8glemen t (CEE) 2727/75 et R\u00e8glement (CEE) 729/70 \n\n4. OBJECTIFS DE LA MESURE : \n\nRem\u00e9dier \u00e0 la p\u00e9nurie de c\u00e9r\u00e9ales au Portugal, provoqu\u00e9e par la s\u00e9cheresse \n\nINCIDENCES FINANCIERES \n\n5. 0 DEPENSES A LA CHARGE \n\n- DU BUDGET DES CE \n\nPERIODE DE \n12 MOIS \n\nMio ECU \n\nEXERCICE EN \nCOURS (92) \nMio ECU \n\nEXERCICE \nSUIVANT (93) \n\nMio ECU \n\n(RESTITUT IONS/1NTERVENTIONS) \n\n8. 3 \n\n8,3 \n\n- DES BUDGETS NATIONAUX \n- D'AUTRES SECTEURS \n\n5. 1 RECETTES \n\n- RESSOURCES PROPRES DES CE \n\n(PRELEVEMENTS/DROITS DE DOUANE) \n\n9,3 \n\n- 9,3 \n\n- SUR LE PLAN NATIONAL \n\n5. 0. 1 PREVISIONS DES DEPENSES \n5. 1. 1 PREVISIONS DES RECETTES \n\n5. 2 MODE DE CALCUL :D\u00e9oenses \n\nFrais de sortie : 382. 000 t x 2,06 ECU/t x 1. 172 (DT) \nFrais d'entr\u00e9e : 382. 000 t x 1,65 ECU/t x 1. 172 (DT) \nFrais de transport. : 382. 000 t x 15 ECU/t x 1. 172(DT) \n\n0. 9 MioECU \n0,7 MioECU \n6,7 MioECU \n\nRessources propres \nNon-application du MCA bl\u00e9:-200. 000 tx39,71 ECU/t x 1. 172(DT) -\n\n9,3 MioECU \n\nTotal \n\n8,3 MioECU \n\n6. 0 FINANCEMENT POSSIBLE PAR CREDITS INSCRITS AU CHAPITRE CONCERNE DU BUDGET \n\nEN COURS D'EXECUTION \n\n6. 1 FINANCEMENT POSSIBLE PAR VIREMENT ENTRE CHAPITRES DU BUDGET EN COURS \n\nD'EXECUTION \n\n6. 2 NECESSITE D'UN BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAIRE \n\n6. 3 CREDITS A INSCRIRE DANS LES BUDGETS FUTURS \n\nOBSERVATIONS : \n\nOUI \n\nOUI \n\nNON \n\nNON \n\n\f\f\u2022 o ,, \u2022. \u2022-\u2022--. ? \n\nISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 132 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-146-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42747-7 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg \n\nI \n\ni"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ff32a700-590e-4498-9da9-81c38a496e1e", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 830/92 of 30 March 1992 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyester yarns (man-made staple fibres) originating in Taiwan, Indonesia, India, the People's Republic of China and Turkey and collecting definitively the provisional duty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "anti-dumping duty,anti-dumping legislation,import,man-made fibre,textile fibre,third country", "workIds": "celex:31992R0830,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0001_029", "eurovoc_concepts": ["anti-dumping duty", "anti-dumping legislation", "import", "man-made fibre", "textile fibre", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ff32a700-590e-4498-9da9-81c38a496e1e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2199413d-195b-4e0a-a219-60602908f55e", "title": "92/220/EEC: Council Decision of 30 March 1992 on the conclusion of the Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol establishing, for the period from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1993, the fishing rights and financial compensation provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Guinea on fishing off the Guinean coast", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Guinea,fishing agreement,protocol to an agreement,sea fishing", "workIds": "celex:31992D0220", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Guinea", "fishing agreement", "protocol to an agreement", "sea fishing"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2199413d-195b-4e0a-a219-60602908f55e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9aa74152-7369-437e-a7e1-87aa206f2bdb", "title": "Amended proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "consumer survey,cooperation policy,human nutrition,public health,scientific cooperation,standing committee (EU)", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0128,comnat:COM_1992_0128_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_107_R_0013_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["consumer survey", "cooperation policy", "human nutrition", "public health", "scientific cooperation", "standing committee (EU)"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9aa74152-7369-437e-a7e1-87aa206f2bdb", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 128 final - SYN 332 \n\nBrussels, 30 March 1992 \n\nAmended proposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DIRECTIVE \n\non assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the \n\nMember States in the scientific examination of questions \n\nrelating to food \n\n(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 149(3) \nof the EEC-Treaty) \n\nfer-'-\n\nT \n\nSf \n\n\f'c -\n\nEXELANAIQBY_MEMQBAMDI1M \n\n1. This modified proposal introduces those amendments \nvoted on 12 March 1992 by the European Parliament which, \nin some cases having been subjected to editorial changes, \nthe Commission can accept. The modifications concern the following points and are \nacceptable for the reasons stated: \n\nthe introduction of recitals and amendments to \narticles which clarify the scope of the directive; \n\nthe introduction of a more equitable basis for the \ndistribution to the institutes in the Member States of \nthe tasks envisaged to be subject to the scientific \nco-operation; \n\nthe introduction of an undertaking to establish an \ninventory of the relevant scientific expertise within \nthe European Community and to encourage the \nmaintainance of that expertise by a process of peer \nreview; \n\nclarification of the procedure by which the programme \nof work to be subject to the scientific co-operation \nwill be determined; \n\nthe introduction of an undertaking to inform the \nParliament of the operation of the scientific co \noperation on a regular basis; \n\nfurther definition of the principal tasks to be \ncarried out under the scientific co-operation. 2. The following amendments were not acceptable to the \nCommission and for the following reasons: \n\nrecitals relating to the overall structure of \nCommunity food policy and which are therefore not \nappropriate to the scope of the proposal; \n\nrecitals and amendments to articles instituting \nconsumer involvement which is not appropriate in view \nof the strictly scientific nature of the examination \nof the questions envisaged by the proposal; \n\nthe introduction of a Community system of appraisal \nand accreditation of scientific institutes in the \nMember States which is an unnecessary assumption of \nresponsibilities best left to the Member States; \n\n\f- y \n\nthe introduction of a measure of public access to the \nproceedings relating to the scientific examination of \nquestions relating to foodstuffs and the personal \ninterests of the members of the Scientific Committee \nfor Food which goes beyond that reasonably necessary \nfor the proper and smooth operation of the scientific \nco-operation. ' A-\n\nAmended \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DIRECTIVE \n\non assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the \n\nMember States in the scientific examination of questions \n\nrelating to food \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \n\nand in particular Article 100a thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,1 \n\nIn cooperation with the European Parliament,2 \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee,3 \n\nWhereas the completion and smooth operation of the internal market for \n\nfoodstuffs make it necessary to examine and evaluate scientific questions \n\nrelating to food in disciplines such as medicine, nutrition, toxicology, \n\nfood contamination, microbiology, novel foods and processes, hygiene, food \n\nquality, labelling, methods of analysis, risk assessment techniques, and \n\ninspection and enforcement, particularly when these questions concern human \n\nhealth; \n\nWhereas consumers are entitled to a Community food policy which promotes \n\nsafe food particularly regarding nutritional, microbiological and \n\ntoxicological issues: \n\n1 O. J. No. C 108, 23. 4. 1991, p. 7 \n\n2 \n\n3 O. J. No. C 14, 20. 1. 1992, P. 6 \n\n\f\"<7 \" \n\nWhereas in order to assist with this task the Commission set up a \n\nScientific Committee for Food by Decision 74/234/EEC;1 \n\nWhereas consultation of this Committee is currently required, in relation \n\nto questions of public health, by a number of Directives such as those on \n\ndietetic foodstuffs, materials and articles intended to come into contact \n\nwith foodstuffs, additives, flavourings and extraction solvents; \n\nWhereas \n\nthe Sclent ific \n\nCommittee \n\nfor Food should be \n\ninvolved \n\nmuch more \n\nwidely i \n\ni n Commun i t y \n\npolicies \n\nthat \n\n: affect food, diet \n\nand publ \n\nic 1 \n\nhealth: \n\nWhereas \n\nthe \n\nprocess \n\nof \n\nachieving \n\na satisfactory scientific b \n\nfor matters \n\nrelating to \n\nfood sai \n\nfetv \n\n' must, , in \n\nthe interests of consumers \n\nindustry be \n\nase \nand \n\nindependent, transparent and effective: \n\nWhereas in order to ensure the smooth running of this Committee the \n\nCommission needs scientific support from the Member States; \n\nWhereas the Commission also needs scientific and logistical support for \n\nother questions of public interest essential to the operation of the \n\ninternal market, such as the handling of incidents involving food \n\ncontamination and public controls and in general where it is necessary to \n\nlay down new rules concerning foodstuffs which may affect human health; \n\nWhereas, in order to ensure that these tasks are carried out, the \n\nCommission must have open access to the information and assistance \n\navailable in the Member States, which must facilitate the accomplishment of \n\nits work in an open way: \n\nWhereas the completion of the internal market and the need to protect \n\nstandards in the Community must give rise to increased participation of the \n\nCommunity represented by the Commission in the meetings and work on \n\nfoodstuffs of international organisations such as the WHO, FAO, JECFA, \n\nGATT, Council of Europe, OECD and also in bilateral relations; \n\n1 O. J. No. L 136, 20. 5. 1974, p. 1 \n\n\f-/ \n\n-\n\nWhereas in the Member States there are various institutions whose task is \n\nto provide their governments with scientific back-up on questions \n\nconcerning foodstuffs; whereas it is necessary to use these resources \n\neffectively to support Community activities through cooperation; \n\nWhereas there must therefore be an approximation of the provisions \n\ngoverning these bodies in order that they may cooperate directly with the \n\nCommission with the aim especially of drawing up future rules to ensure the \n\nfree movement of foodstuffs, on the basis of all the scientific data \n\navailable; \n\nWhereas it is necessary to enhance and strengthen the remit and expertise \n\nof the Scientific Committee for Food, particularly with the aim of \n\nincreasing the effectiveness of the EC in food issues: \n\nWhereas it is necessary to make provision for third countries to \n\nparticipate in this cooperation; \n\nWhereas the Commission must be responsible for the management of this \n\ncooperation and the Member States for their part must assist in this task, \n\nin the context of the Standing Committee for Food. HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: \n\nArticle 1 \n\n1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to adapt the laws, \n\nregulations and administrative provisions which govern, in \n\nparticular, the functioning of their competent authorities and \n\nbodies so as to enable them to cooperate with the Commission and \n\nlend it the assistance it needs in the scientific examination of \n\nquestions of public interest relating to food, particularly in the \n\nfield of public health, through disciplines such as medicine, \n\nnutrition, toxicology, biology, microbiology, biotechnology, novel \n\nfoods and processes, methods of analysis, risk assessment \n\ntechniques, physics and chemistry. -I \n\n2. (a) This Directive shall apply when a Council act requires the opinion \n\nof the Scientific Committee for Food. (b) For the purposes of the completion and operation of the internal \n\nmarket this Directive shall also apply to any question relating to \n\nthe protection of the health and safety of persons arising from the \n\nconsumption of food, in particular the composition of food, \n\nprocesses which are liable to modify food, the use of food \n\nadditives and other processing aids as well as the presence of \n\ncontaminants and the nutritional impact of Community legislation on \n\ndiet and health. Article 2 \n\n1. Each Member State shalI designate the authority or body which wi11 \n\nbe responsible for the cooperation with the Commission and for \n\ndistribution of work to appropriate Institutes within Member States \n\nas regards the tasks laid down in Article 3 and shall notify the \n\nCommission accordingly. 2. The tasks to be carried out In accordance with the inventory of \n\ntasks adopted in accordance with Article 3(2) 1st indent, shall be \n\ndistributed between the responsible authorities or bodies mentioned \n\nin paragraph 1. by common agreement between the Commission and the \n\ncompetent authorities or bodies of the Member States on the basis \n\nof scientific expertise and within the limits set by the resources \n\navailable in the Member States. 3. The Commission shall also: \n\na) Initiate a Community inventory of scientific expertise and \n\nexcellence on these issues. b) Encourage international peer review assessment of such \n\nlaboratories and personnel. e-\n\nArticle 3 \n\n1~ \n\nThe principal tasks to be carried out by the designated authorities \n\nor bodies participating in the cooperation are listed in the Annex. 2. The following measures shall be executed in accordance with the \n\nprocedure laid down in Article 5: \n\n- establishment, and updating at least every six months, of the \n\ninventory of tasks and their associated priorities; \n\n- establishment of rules for the administrative management of the \n\ncooperat ion; \n\n- establishment of rules for the appraisal of requests for \n\nscientific assessment submitted to the Commission or to Member \n\nStates in accordance with Council acts which require the \n\nconsultation of the Scientific Committee for Food; \n\nArticle 4 \n\nThe Commission may, after consultations with the authorities or bodies \n\nmentioned in Article 2(1). invite third countries to participate in the \n\ncarrying out of the tasks mentioned in Article 3(2). 1st indent. Article 5 \n\nThe Commission shall be assisted by the Standing Committee on Food set up \n\nby Council Decision 69/414/EEC. 1 \n\n1 O. J. No. L 291, 19. 11. 1969, p. 9 \n\n\f- 9-\n\nThe Commission representative shall submit to the Committee a draft of the \n\nmeasures to be taken. The Committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft \n\nwithin a time limit which the chairman may lay down according to the \n\nurgency of the matter, if necessary by means of vote. The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member \n\nState shall have the right to ask for its position to be recorded in the \n\nminutes. The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by \n\nthe Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which its \n\nopinion has been taken into account. Article Sb \n\nThe Commission shall report to the European Parliament on the structures, \n\nwork and efficiency of the Scientific Committee for Food within three years \n\nof the implementation of this Directive and every three years thereafter. Article 6 \n\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and \n\nadministrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 1 \n\nJanuary 1993. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. When Member States adopt these provisions, these shall contain a reference \n\nto this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of \n\ntheir official publication. The procedure for such reference shall be \n\nadopted by Member States. - y f C-\n\nArtlcle 7 \n\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States \n\nDone at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\nThe President \n\n\f-H-\n\nA N N EX \n\nThe principal tasks to be carried out by the designated authorities or \n\nbodies participating in the cooperation shall include: \n\ndrawing up protocols for the assessment of risks relating to food \n\ncomponents and elaborating methods of nutritional evaluation. - \n\nassessing the nutritional adequacy of the diet. examining test data submitted to a Member State or to the Commission \n\nunder the requirements of a Community act and the production of a \n\nmonograph for assessment by the Scientific Committee for Food; \n\ncarrying out food intake surveys, particularly those necessary for the \n\ndetermination or evaluation of the conditions of use of food additives \n\nor the laying down of limit values for other substances In food; \n\n- \n\nconducting investigations relating to components of diets or of \n\nbiological or chemical food contaminants; \n\ncarrying out scientific work in relation to food control, and in \n\nparticular that arising from the programmes of official inspection \n\nlaid down under Directive 89/397/EEC; \n\ncollecting and storing data relating to the abovementioned activities \n\nfor assessment by official bodies or, where appropriate, by the \n\npub lie; \n\nhelping the Commission honour the Commity's international commitments \n\nby providing expertise on food safety questions. ISSN 0254-147! \n\nCOM(92)128fina \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n1; \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-141-EN-( \n\nISBN 92-77-42657-\n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bf8fd347-198d-481a-b5f0-50079eaf44b3", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 906/92 of 30 March 1992 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon metal originating in Brazil", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Brazil,anti-dumping duty,dumping,semi-metal", "workIds": "celex:31992R0906,oj:JOL_1992_096_R_0017_023", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Brazil", "anti-dumping duty", "dumping", "semi-metal"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bf8fd347-198d-481a-b5f0-50079eaf44b3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7fcbcd37-c231-4638-929e-70ca3e10c416", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) on transit statistics and storage statistics relating to the trading og goods between Member States", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Union transit,customs document,customs warehouse,statistics,trading operation", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0097,comnat:COM_1992_0097_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_107_R_0016_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Union transit", "customs document", "customs warehouse", "statistics", "trading operation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7fcbcd37-c231-4638-929e-70ca3e10c416", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92)97 \n\nfinal-SYN 407 \n\nBrussels,30 March 1992 \n\niW-\n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\non transit statistics and storage statistics relating to the trading \nof goods between Member States \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\fEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\n1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91 of 7 November 1991, on the statistics relating to \nthe trading of goods between Member States, lays down in Article 4 that transit or \nstorag statistics shall be compiled on certain goods moving from one Member State to \nanother \nd in Article 31 that the provisions necessary for these statistics to be compiled \nmust be adopted by the Council on a proposal from the Commission. The present draft \nRegulation is designed to satisfy these requirements. 2. It has been established that in the present circumstances the Community as such has no \nneed of these statistics; on the other hand, several Member States do compile, or intend to \ncompile, transit and storage statistics. From 1993, the absence of legislation would \nprevent them from obtaining information in these two fields; it is therefore necessary to \ndefine the framework within which the Member States will be able to collect the \ninformation necessary for producing these statistics. 3. With the same general aim as Regulation No 3330/91 referred to above, the present \nRegulation, while taking account of the elimination of formalities at the Community's \ninternal borders, sets up the new system of collection on the basis of direct contact with \nthe parties responsible for providing information and lays down the methodology to be \nfollowed. This methodology imposes certain limits so that the burden on the respondents \nis not generally increased and does not vary excessively from one Member State to \nanother; it is thus mainly concerned with the data media and classifications to be used and \nthe information to be declared. Nevertheless, this proposal allows the Member States a certain degree of freedom, in \nview of their differing situations in certain respects, without jeopardizing the intended \nlessening of the burden. 4. It is also in order to alleviate burdens that thresholds are laid down below which the \nparties responsible are not required to make declarations for statistical purposes; these are \nin fact minimum thresholds which the Member States will be obliged to adhere to. 5. As regards the trading of goods between Member States, the adoption of this Regulation \nwill complete the legislation to be adopted by the Council in order to meet statistical \nrequirements after 1992. Council Regulation (EEC) No \n\n/92 of \n\non transit statistics and storage statistics relating to the trading \nof goods between Member States \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and \nin particular Article 100A thereof. Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91 of 7 November 1991 on \nthe statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member Statest1), \nand in particular Articles 4 and 31 thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nIn cooperation with the European Parliament, \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee, \n\nWhereas abolishing customs formalities, controls and documentation for any \nmovement of goods across internal frontiers is necessary for the completion \nof the internal market; \n\nWhereas, in the Member States, statistics may nevertheless still be required \non the trading of goods between Member States that results from transit \nmovements and movements into and out of warehouses; \n\nWhereas the framework in which the Member States are authorized to organize \ntheir statistical surveys on these movements must be determined in order to \nprevent the burden on the information respondents varying excessively from \none Member State to another; \n\nWhereas, within that framework, it is necessary to determine the purpose of \ntransit and storage statistics and its consequences for the collection of \ninformation, to ensure that responsibility for collecting this data is \ndirected towards existing administrative sources and to refer to the \ncompetent administrative services to fill any gaps, without increasing the \nburden on the information respondents; \n\nWhereas this burden must not exceed certain limits, as regards either \nclassifications, the data to be declared or the information media; \n\nWhereas it is important that the burden of transit and storage statistics be \nalleviated, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises; whereas this \nshould be effected by means of statistical thresholds; \n\nWhereas the Commission must not only adopt provisions implementing this \nRegulation but must also ensure that other implementing provisions adopted by \nthe Member States do not compromise the alleviation of the burden on the \ninformation respondents; whereas the Commission should be assisted in this \ntask by the Committee on the statistics relating to the trading of goods \nbetween Member States, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\n(1) OJ No L 316 of 16. 11. 1991, p. 1 \n\n\fArticle 1 \n\n1. With a view to drawing up transit statistics and storage statistics, the \nMember States may collect data on the trading of goods between Member \nStates, acting in conformity with the rules laid down in this Regulation. 2. The Member States which exercise this option shall so inform the \n\nCommission. Article 2 \n\nFor the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions given in Regulation \n(EEC) No 3330/91, Article 2 a ), b ), c ), d ), e) and f) shall apply. For the purposes of this Regulation: \n\na) transit means the crossing of a given Member State by goods which are \nbeing transported between two places situated outside that Member \nState; \n\nb) interrupted transit means transit during which a break in transport \n\noccurs; this also includes transshipment. c) customs warehousing procedure means the procedure of the customs \n\nwarehouses as defined in Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 2503/88 of 25 July 1988 on customs warehouses1) \n\nd) competent statistical services means those services in each Member \n\nState which are responsible for drawing up statistics on the trading \nof goods between Member States. Article 3 \n\nOf the goods referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91, those \non which data are to be collected for drawing up statistics of transit \nthrough a given Member State are goods which are in interrupted transit in \nthat Member State, except goods which, having entered the said Member State \nas non-Community goods, have subsequently been put into free circulation \nthere. 1) O J No L 22S of 15. 8. 1988, p. l l \n\n! \n\nU \n\n\fArticle 4 \n\nOf the goods referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91, the \nfollowing are those on which data are to be collected for drawing up storage \nntatistics in a given Member State: \n\na) those which, though the customs warehousing procedure has not terminated, \n\nare transferred, within the meaning of Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No \n2503/88, from a customs warehouse situated in that same Member State to \none situated in another Member State; \n\nb) those which, though the customs warehousing procedure has not been \n\nterminated, are transferred, within the meaning of Article 20 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 2503/88,to a customs warehouse situated in that \nMember State from a customs warehouse situated in another Member State; \n\nc) those which are subject to the customs warehousing procedure in that \nMember State and are sent to another Member State under the external \nCommunity transit procedure; \n\nd) those which are subject to customs warehousing procedure in that Member \n\nState, having come from another Member State under the Community external \ntransit procedure. Article 5 \n\nThe Member States shall authorise, under the conditions which they \nthemselves determine, those responsible for providing statistical \ninformation to use administrative or commercial documents already \nrequired for other purposes as the statistical information medium. Nevertheless, with a view to the standardization of their basic \ndocumentation, the Member States may establish exclusively statistical \nmedia provided that those required to provide the statistical information \nare free to choose which of these media they will use. The Member States shall inform the Commission of the media which they \nauthorize or establish. s \n\n\fArticle 6 \n\n1. In a given Member State, the person responsible for providing the \n\nstatistical information referred to in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No \n3330/91 is the natural or legal person who, engaged in that Member State \nin the trading of goods between Member States, draws up the \nadministrative or commercial document designated as the statistical \ninformation medium pursuant to Article 5(1), 1st indent-\n\nIn the absence of such a person and by way of derogation to Article 8 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3330/91, each Member State shall nominate, from \nwithin t n administrative services to which the document referred to in \nthe first aragraph is made available, one service which shall provide \nthe information. 2. The Member States, may, if they wish, proceed in accordance with the \nsecond paragraph of Article 6. 1. in order to relieve the persons \nresponsible for supplying information of their obligations, in whole or \nin part. 3. The person or service referred to in Article 6 (1) shall conform with the \n\nprovisions of this Regulation, the provisions laid down by the \nCommission shall lay down pursuant to Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) \nNo 3330/91 and the measures taken by the Member States to implement these \nprovisions. Article 7 \n\n1. In the statistical information medium to be sent to the competent \n\nservices: \n\nwithout prejudice to Article 34 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91, the \ngoods shall be designated according to their usual trade description \nin sufficiently precise terms to permit their identification and \ntheir immediate and unequivocal classification in the most detailed \nrelevant subdivision of the applicable version, i. e. the \nclassification of the Harmonized System for transit statistics and \nthe Combined Nomenclature for storage statistics, irrespective of th< \nlevel at which these classifications are applied; however, this \nprovision shall not prevent the Member States applying the Standard \nGoods Nomenclature for Transport Statistics - revised (NST/R) insteac \nof the above-mentioned classifications where this is permissible \nunder the legislation governing the medium used; \n\n- \n\nthe code number corresponding to the above-mentioned subdivision may \nalso be required by type of goods. 2. In the statistical information medium, the countries shall be designated \n\nby an alphabetic or numerical code, as laid down in Council Regulation \n(EEC) No 1736/75 of 24 June 1975 on the external trade statistics of the \nCommunity and statistics of trade between Member States(*). In order to apply the first paragraph above, those responsible for \nproviding information shall comply with the instructions of tfee competent \nnational departments in drawing up the statistics covered by this \nRegulation. (1) O J No L 183 of 14. 7. 197S, p. 3 \n\n\fArticle 8 \n\nMember States which establish transit statistics shall determine which \ndata from the following list are to be included on the statistical \ninformation medium by type of goods: \n\na) the country of consignment within the meaning of Article 9; \nb) the country of destination within the meaning of Article 9; \nc) the quantity of goods in gross weight within the meaning of \n\nArticle 9; \n\nd) the mode of transport, pursuant to Article 9(f)(1); \ne) the place where the interruption in transit took place, pursuant to \n\nArticle 9. Those Member States which establish storage statistics shall determine \nwhich data from the following list shall be included on the statistical \ninformation medium, by type of goods: \n\na) the Member State of consignment, in the Member State which the the \n\ngoods enter within the meaning of Article 9; \n\nb) the Member State of destination, in the case of the Member State \n\nwhich goods enter within the meaning of Article 9; \n\nc) the country of origin within the meaning of Article 9; this item of \n\ninformation is, however, only required within the limits of Community \nlaw; \n\nd) the quantity of goods expressed in gross mass or net mass pursuant to \nArticle 9 and, if the Combined Nomenclature is used, in supplementary \nunits in accordance with the CN, in application of Article 7(1); \n\ne) the customs value; \nf) the presumed mode of transport, pursuant to Article 9(f)(2). Where not covered elsewhere in this Regulation, the definition of the \ndata referred to in 1 and 2, and the ways in which these shall be \nindicated listed on the statistical information medium, shall be \ndetermined by the Commission pursuant to the procedure laid down in \nArticle 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91. Article 9 \n\nWith a view to the application of Article 8: \n\na) country/Member State of consignment means the last country/Member State \nin which the goods have been held up or subjected to legal procedures n \ninherent in the transport process; \n\nb) country 'ember State of destination means the last country/Member State \nknown at -he moment the statistical information medium is drawn up, as \nthe one towards which the goods must be sent; \n\nc) country of origin means the country in which the goods originate within \nthe meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 802/68 of 27 June 1968 on th< \ncommon definition of the concept of origin of goods(x); \n\nd) gross mass means the cumulated mass of the goods and all their packaging \nwith the exclusion of the transport equipment, and particularly of \ncontainers; \n\ne) net mass means the weight of the goods proper excluding any packaging; \n\nf) mode of transport means that actually used \n\n1) before or after the interruption of transit; \n2) on entry to or exit from the warehouse. Modes of transport are as follows: \n\nCode \n1 \n2 \n3 \n4 \n5 \n7 \n8 \n9 \n\nDesignation \nSea transport \nRail transport \nRoad transport \nAir transport \nPostal shipments \nFixed transport installations \nInland waterway transport \nSelf-propelled \n\nIf the mode of transport is given as one of those listed under Codes 1, 2, 3, \n4 or 8, it must also be stated whether the goods are transported in \ncontainers within the meaning of Article 15(3) of \nRegulation No 1736/75. g) Place of interruption of transit means the port, airport or any other \n\nplace where transit is interrupted within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b). (1) OJ No L 148 of 28. 6. 1968, p. 1 \n\ni \n\n\fArticle 10 \n\n1. When the data referred to in Article 7 and 8 do not need to be given on \nthe administrative or commercial document referred to in the first \nparagraph of Article 5(1) for the purposes for which this document is \nrequired, the Member States shall instruct the administrative service \nreferred to in the second paragraph of Article 6(1) to collect them and \nforward them to the competent statistical services in accordance with \nprocedures which they shall lay down. 2. Without prejudice the second paragraph of Article 5(1), the Member States \n\nshall establish the media to be used by the above-mentioned \nadministrative service for forwarding these data. Article 11 \n\n1. For the purposes of this Regulation, the statistical thresholds are \n\ndefined as limits - expressed in gross mass for transit statistics and as \nvalues or in mass for storage statistics - below which respondents are \nnot required to submit information. 2. The threshold for transit statistics is fixed per type of goods at at \n\nleast: \n\n50 kg in the case of air transport; \n1 000 kg for other modes of transport. - \n\n3. The threshold for storage statistics is fixed at at least ECU 800 per \n\ntype of goods, irrespective of the mass of the goods, or at at least \n1 000 kg per type of goods, irrespective of the value of the goods. 1 \n\n\fArticle 12 \n\n1- Information which is communicated in application of this Regulation and \nwhich is confidential or is covered by professional secrecy shall be \nsubject to the protection accorded to information of the same type under \nthe national law of the Member State which receives it and under the \ncorresponding provisions applicable to Community bodies. Information referred to in the above paragraph may not be communicated to \npersons other than those in the Member States or the Community \ninstitutions whose official duties require them to have knowledge of it. Neither may it be used for purposes other than those laid down in this \nRegulation, unless the authority which supplied it has expressly agreed \nand as long as such communication or use is not forbidden by the \nprovisions in force in the Member State or authority which has recieved \nit. 2. Paragraph 1 above shall not preclude the use of the information obtained \n\nin application of this Regulation for the purposes of subsequent legal \nproceedings or prosecutions. If the information is used for such purposes, the competent authority of \nthe Member State which supplied it shall be immediately informed. Article 13 \n\n1- The provisions necessary for implementing this Regulation shall be laid \ndown in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 30 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3330/91. 2. The Member States may lay down the provisions required for collecting \n\ninformation in order to draw up transit and storage statistics when such \nprovisions are not contained in this Regulation or laid down by the \nCommission in accordance with paragraph 1. Nevertheless, if the effect of these national arrangements is to \ncompromise the alleviation of the burden on the information respondents, \nthe Commission shall lay down, in conformity with the above-mentioned \nArticle, the arrangements which reestablish the conditions for \nalleviating this burden. Av \n\n\fArticle 14 \n\nThe Member States shall communicate to the Commission the measures which they \ntake to implement this Regulation. Article 15 \n\nThe Committee on the statistics relating to the trading of goods between \nMember States, instituted by Article 29 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91, may \nexamine any question relating to the implementation of this Regulation raised \nby its Chairman, either on his own initiative or at the request of the \nrepresentative of a Member State. Article 16 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its \npublication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall be applicable from the date given in the second paragraph of Article \n35 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91. //M \n\n\fIMPACT ON THE SME AND EMPLOYMENT \n\nAdministrative obligations resulting from the application of the legislation for enterprises \n\nThe regulation does not define new obligations to declare information; it does, however, \nrecommend the use of documents, which are already required for other purposes, as statistical \ninformation media. One should point out that the regulation is designed to meet the needs of the \nMember States whereas the Community as such has not yet identified any similar requirements \nfor information. 2. Advantages for the enterprise \n\nThe regulation aims to standardise procedures and \nlimits for statistical \nrequirements. Stress is also laid on reducing the burden on respondents as the Regulation \ndetermines the thresholds which enterprises are not obliged to declare information. lays down \n\nit \n\nIt is obvious that in general, having statistics is advantageous for the enterprises, directly or \nindirectly, if they are both suppliers and users of the information. 3. Disadvantages for the enterprise \n\nAn obligation to declare, whatever its nature, can always be considered as a burden on \nenterprises; nevertheless, the regulation attempts to reduce this burden and also introduces \nsimplified procedures. 4. Effects on employment \n\nThe Regulation should have neither a negative nor a positive effect on employment; in general, \nits aim is to maintain the data collection necessary for drawing up the statistics which are \ncurrently prepared by certain Member States; it does this by adapting the framework and \nmethodology of these statistics to the special situation created by the introduction of the internal \nmarket. 5. Was there a prior consultation with the social partners? \n\nAs regards transiting and warehousing movements, this Regulation does derive from an obligation \nlaid down in Council Regulation No 3330/91 on the statistics relating to the trading of goods \nbetween Member States. This regulation, including the particular aspect in question, was \npreceded by opinions of the Economic and Social Committee and under went the cooperation \nprocedure with the European Parliament after it had been carefully prepared by the Commission \nwhich kept the main professional organisations concerned informed during the whole process. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 97 \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n17 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-108-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42067-7 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \n\nLr2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e581b023-114d-4010-81a3-73776847ee27", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 861/92 of 30 March 1992 fixing, for the 1992 harvest, the maximum guaranteed quantities in the raw tobacco sector", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "EU production,agricultural quota,marketing year,tobacco", "workIds": "celex:31992R0861,oj:JOL_1992_091_R_0002_015", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU production", "agricultural quota", "marketing year", "tobacco"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e581b023-114d-4010-81a3-73776847ee27", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8127200f-7073-47b0-b9b9-8f7db1b207d1", "title": "Proposal for COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) establishing, for the period running from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the Community reserve for the application fo the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "EU stock,milk,milk product", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0137(03),comnat:COM_1992_0137(03)_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU stock", "milk", "milk product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8127200f-7073-47b0-b9b9-8f7db1b207d1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(90) 137 final \n\nBrussels, 30 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nrmilNPIl REGULATION (EEC) \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the \ncommon organization of the market \nin milk and milk products \n\nftxjposftl \n\ntot \n\nO00HCXL KBSDXAm (ETC) \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 adopting general rules \nfor the application of the levy referred to in A r t i c le 5c \nof Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk \nand milk products sector \n\nProposal \n\nf or \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\nestablishing, for die period running from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the \nCommunity reserve for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of \nRegulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\f1 -\n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No \n\n/. of \namending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the \ncommon organization of the market \nin milk and milk products \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in \n\nparticular Article 43 thereof. Having regard to the proposal from the Commission \n\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament \n\n(2) \n\nWhereas the additional-levy arrangements introduced by Article be of Council \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 804/68 \n\n, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No \n\nexpire on 31 March 1992; whereas new arrangements applicable until the year 2000 \n\nare to be adopted as part of reform of the common agricultural policy; whereas it \n\nis necessary in the meantime to continue the present arrangements for a ninth \n\nperiod of twelve months; whereas, under the the Commission proposals, the total \n\nquantity set by this Regulation may be reduced, in return for compensation, for \n\nthe said period so that the rationalization efforts already begun can be \n\ncontinued; \n\nWhereas because of the market situation it was necessary temporarily to suspend \n\npart of the reference quantities from the fourth twelve-month period, pursuant to \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 775/87 \n\n(5). as last amended by Regulation (EEC) \n\nNo 364. 1/90 \n\n; whereas because of persisting surpluses 4,5% of the reference \n\nquantities for deliveries are not included for the ninth period in the guaranteed \n\ntotal quantities; whereas in the course of Reform of the CAP the Council will \n\ndecide definitively what is to happen with these quantities; \n\n( 1) OJ No \n(2) OJ No \n(3) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13 \n(4) OJ No L \n<b) OJ No L 78, 20. 3. 1987, p. 5. (6) OJ No L 362, 27. 12. 1990, p. 9. - 2 -\n\nWhereas, on this assumption, it seems advisable to specify, under the terms of \n\nthis Regulation, the amount for each Member State of the quantities concerned: \n\nWhereas it has been agreed that application of the arrangements to control milk \n\nproduction must not jeopardize the restructuring of agricultural holdings in \n\nthterritory of the former German Democratic Republic; whereas the diffiulties \n\nencountered make it necessary to extend for a further period the flexibility \n\nintroduced into those arrangements for that territory, while ensuring that it \n\nremains the sole beneficiary; \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\nArticle 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 is hereby amended as follows: \n\n1) in the first subparagraph of paragraph i, \"during eight periods. \" is \n\nreplaced by \"during nine periods. \"; \n\n2) the following paragraph 1b is added: \n\n\"lb. In the case of agricultural holdings situated in the territory of the \n\nformer German Democratic Republic, the reference quantity may be \n\nallocated provisionally for the ninth period, provided that the quantity \n\nthus allocated is not modified during that period. \"; \n\n3) the following point (g) is added to paragraph 3: \n\n\"(g) for the twelve-month period from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, and \n\nwithout prejudice during that period, taking account of the Commission \n\nproposals in connection with the Reform of the CAP, to a 1% reduction \n\ncalculated on the basis of the quantity referred to in the second \n\nsubparagraph of this paragraph, the total quantity, expressed in \n\nthousands of tonnes, shall be: \n\n\f- 3 -\n\n(1) \n\nBelgium \nDenmark \nGermany \nGreece \nSpain \nFrance \nIreland \nItaly \nLuxembourg \nNetherlands \nPortugal \nUnited Kingdom \n\n2 881,036 \n4 369,390 \n27 154,205 \n520,615 \n4 361,750 \n23 042,430 \n4 725,600 \n8 224,210 \n237,175 \n10 709,205 \n1 743,420 \n13 702,993 \n\nThe quantities referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 775/87 which are not \n\nincluded in the preceding point are as follows in thousands of tonnes: \n\nBelgium \nDenmark \nGermany \nGreece \nSpain \nFrance \nIreland \nItaly \nLuxembourg \nNetherlands \nUnited Kingdom \n\n144,495 \n219,690 \n\n1 360,215 (2) \n24,165 \n209,250 \n1 153,530 \n237,600 \n395,910 \n11,925 \n539,055 \n689,831 \n\n(1) including 6 157,620 for deliveries to buyers established in the territory of \n\nthe former German Democratic Republic \n\n(2) including 306,18 in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic \n\nThe Council shall take a final decision on the future of these quantities in the \n\ncontext of the Reform of the CAP. Article 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the \n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 April 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all \n\nMember States. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\n\f- 4 -\n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No \n\nof \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 adopting general rules \nfor the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c \nof Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk \nand milk products sector \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nWaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \n\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of \n\nrhe market in milk and milk products \n\n, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No \n\n, and \n\nin particular Article 5c(6) thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission \n\n, \n\n(3) \n\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament \n\n> \n\nWhereas the additional-levy arrangements referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 \n\nhave been extended for a ninth period of twelve months; whereas it is accordingly necessary to adapt \n\nthe relevant provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 \n\n, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) \n\n(5) \n\nNo 1639/91 <6); \n\nWhereas it has been agreed that application of the arrangements to control milk production must not \n\njeopardize the restructuring of agricultural holdings in the territory of the former German \n\nDemocratic Republic; whereas the difficulties encountered make it necessary to extend for a further \n\nperiod the flexibility introduced into those arrangements for that territory, while ensuring that it \n\nremains the sole beneficiary; \n\n(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13 \n(2) OJ No L \n(3) OJ No \n(4) OJ No \n(5) OJ No L 90, 1. 4. 1984, p. 13. (6) OJ No L 150, 15. 6. 1992, p. 35 \n\n\f- 5 -\n\nWhereas the provisions of Article 7(2) and (3) of this Regulation, concerning the \n\nreplacement of purchasers, were the subject, by the judgment of the Court of \n\nJustice of the European Communities of 10 July 1991, of an interpretation such \n\nthat the aforementioned provisions should be clarified accordingly; \n\nWhereas the total quantities for direct sales laid down in the Annex to this \n\nRegulation should be adapted in the same way as the total quantities for \n\ndeliveries under Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, for the same reasons, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 857/84 is hereby amended as follows: \n\n1) in the first subparagraph of Article 4a(1), \"for the eight \n\nperiods \n\n\" \n\nis replaced by \"for the nine \n\nperiods \n\n\". 2) the following is added to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2): \n\n\"However, for the period from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the quantities \n\nshall be established without prejudice to a 1% reduction, taking account of \n\nthe Commission proposals in connection with the Reform of the CAP, during \n\nthat period. \" \n\n\f- 6 -\n\n3) in Article 7: \n\n(a) in the third subparagraph of paragraph 1, \"for the eighth twelve-month \n\nperiod. \" is replaced by \"for the ninth twelve-month period. \u2022. \"; \n\n(b) the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: \n\n\"The Member States may provide that part of the quantities referred to in \n\nparagraph 1 shall be added to the reserve mentioned in Article 5 or, \n\ndepending on the circumstances, to the reserve mentioned in \n\nArticle 8(3). \" \n\n4) in the first subparagraph of Article 9(4), \"for the eight. periods. \" is \n\nreplaced by \"for the nine. periods. \"; \n\n5) the following column shall be added after the column headed \n\n\"1. 4. 1991-31. 3. 1992\": \n\nBelgium \nDenmark \nGermany \nGreece \nSpain \nFrance \nIreland \nItaly \nLuxembourg \nNetherlands \nPortugal \nUnited Kingdom \n\n1. 4. 1992-\n31. 3. 1993 \n\n373,193 \n0,951 \n150^038 \n4,528 \n516,950 \n732,824 \n15,210 \n717,870 \n0,951 \n102,307 \n118. 580 \n392,868 \n\nfl) \n\n(1) including 58,801 for the territory of the former German \n\nDemocratic Republic\" \n\n\f- 7 -\n\nArticle 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the \n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 April 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all \n\nMember States. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\n\f1. 4. 92 \n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities \n\nNo L 86/87 \n\ncP \n\nC O U N C IL REGULATION (EEC) No 818/92 \n\nof 31 March 1992 \n\nestablishing, for the period running from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the \nC o m m u n i ty reserve for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of \nRegulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European \nEconomic Community, \n\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of \n27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market \nin milk and milk products ('), as last amended by Regula \ntion (EEC) No 816/92 (2), and in particular Article 5c (6) \nthereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission (3), \n\nreserve for \n\nthe Community \n\nWhereas Article 5c (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 \nprovides for the establishment of a Community reserve in \norder to supplement, at the beginning of each 12-month \nperiod, the overall guaranteed quantities of Member States \nin which the levy scheme gives rise to particular difficul \nties ; whereas \nthe ninth \n12-month period should be again fixed at 2 082 885,740 \ntonnes, including 443 000 tonnes to be allocated in the \nMember States where the implementation of the \nlevy \nsystem still raises special difficulties, 600 000 tonnes to \nalleviate difficulties encountered by the Member States in \nto \nallocating the specific reference quantities pursuant \nArticle 3a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of \n31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application \nof the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) \nNo 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (4) as last \n(EEC) No 817/92(0, and \namended by Regulation \n1 039 885,740 tonnes to alleviate the difficulties encoun \ntered by the Member States in allocating the additional or \n\nspecific \nproducers as defined in Article 3b of that Regulation, \n\nto certain categories of \n\nreference quantities \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION : \n\nArticle 1 \n\nFor the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the \nCommunity reserve provided for in Article 5c (4) of Regu \nlation (EEC) No 804/68 shall be 2 082 885,740 tonnes, of \nwhich : \n\n\u2014 443 000 tonnes shall be allocated in certain Member \nStates where the implementation of the levy system \nraises special difficulties, \n\n\u2014 600 000 tonnes shall be to alleviate the difficulties \nencountered by the Member States in allocating the \nspecific reference quantities pursuant to Article 3a of \nRegulation (EEC) No 857/84, \n\n\u2014 1 039 885,740 tonnes shall be for producers as referred \nto in Article 3b of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84. Article 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its \npublication \nthe European \nCommunities. the Official Journal \n\nin \n\nof \n\nIt shall apply from the beginning of the ninth 12-month \nperiod of the additional levy system. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member \nStates. Done at Brussels, 31 March 1992. For the Council \n\nThe President \n\nArlindo MARQUES CUNHA \n\n(') OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968. p. 13. (') See page 83 of this Official Journal. (J) OJ No C 337, 31. 12. 1991, p. 34. (*) OJ No L 90, 1. 4. 1984, p. 13. (*) See page 85 of this Official Journal. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM (92) 137 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-154-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42894-5 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/53aa4c99-efdf-40f2-9c73-b67e0c7ea87e", "title": "Commission Decision No 891/92/ECSC of 30 March 1992 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain semi-finished products of alloy steel, originating in Turkey and Brazil", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision_ecsc,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Brazil,T\u00fcrkiye,dumping,steel", "workIds": "celex:31992S0891,oj:JOL_1992_095_R_0026_033", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Brazil", "T\u00fcrkiye", "dumping", "steel"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/53aa4c99-efdf-40f2-9c73-b67e0c7ea87e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4bc90703-c3e9-4119-b2da-d87868abf543", "title": "92/211/EEC: Council Decision of 30 March 1992 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning the interim extension for the period from 1 March to 30 April 1992 of the Agreement on relations in the sea-fisheries sector between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco and of the Protocol annexed thereto", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Morocco,fishing agreement,fishing permit,sea fishing", "workIds": "celex:31992D0211", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Morocco", "fishing agreement", "fishing permit", "sea fishing"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4bc90703-c3e9-4119-b2da-d87868abf543", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/572f0bb2-e882-4227-84e9-d288e4a7f6f3", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 833/92 of 30 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/88 on the granting for the 1988/89 to 1995/96 wine years, of permanent abandonment premiums in respect of wine-growing areas and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2239/86 on a specific common measure to improve wine- growing structures in Portugal", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Portugal,cessation of farming,farm development plan,grubbing premium,viticulture", "workIds": "celex:31992R0833,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0016_032", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Portugal", "cessation of farming", "farm development plan", "grubbing premium", "viticulture"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/572f0bb2-e882-4227-84e9-d288e4a7f6f3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8bce630f-b74b-4694-8119-5413b922b8aa", "title": "Bulletin of the European Communities. No 12/1991, Volume 24.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Secretariat-General", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "ECSC,EU activity,EU competition policy,EU energy policy,EU policy,EU publication,EU regional policy,EU research policy,Economic and Monetary Union,European Community,European social policy,common agricultural policy,common fisheries policy,common strategy,common transport policy,competition policy,deepening of the European Union,enlargement of the Union,international relations", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CMAA91012", "eurovoc_concepts": ["ECSC", "EU activity", "EU competition policy", "EU energy policy", "EU policy", "EU publication", "EU regional policy", "EU research policy", "Economic and Monetary Union", "European Community", "European social policy", "common agricultural policy", "common fisheries policy", "common strategy", "common transport policy", "competition policy", "deepening of the European Union", "enlargement of the Union", "international relations"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8bce630f-b74b-4694-8119-5413b922b8aa", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b5b3616e-04c4-4bde-8f27-b5075e09c355", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 831/92 of 30 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3659/90 on products subject to the supplementary trade mechanism during the second stage of Portuguese accession", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Portugal,supplementary trade mechanism,transitional period (EU)", "workIds": "celex:31992R0831,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0014_030", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Portugal", "supplementary trade mechanism", "transitional period (EU)"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b5b3616e-04c4-4bde-8f27-b5075e09c355", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/332a3615-bb04-427d-8512-795ddaeb3c51", "title": "92/221/EEC: Council Decision of 30 March 1992 amending Seventh Decision 85/355/EEC on the equivalence of field inspections carried out in third countries on seed- producing crops and Seventh Decision 85/356/EEC on the equivalence of seed produced in third countries", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "plant health control,seed,third country", "workIds": "celex:31992D0221,oj:JOL_1992_107_R_0034_016", "eurovoc_concepts": ["plant health control", "seed", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/332a3615-bb04-427d-8512-795ddaeb3c51", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6f9995ed-9d5a-4589-a91b-d04c3dbde876", "title": "92/219/EEC: Council Decision of 30 March 1992 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning the provisional application of the Protocol establishing, for the period from 1 January 1992 to 30 September 1993, the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the People's Republic of Mozambique on fisheries relations", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Mozambique,fishing agreement,sea fishing", "workIds": "celex:31992D0219", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Mozambique", "fishing agreement", "sea fishing"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6f9995ed-9d5a-4589-a91b-d04c3dbde876", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7d70fd13-cfea-46bb-a0da-1bed80896bb1", "title": "Videopub : Video film catalogue: January 1992.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_stpl", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission,Publications Office of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Videotex,documentary tool,serial publication", "workIds": "PUB_JYAB91001", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Videotex", "documentary tool", "serial publication"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7d70fd13-cfea-46bb-a0da-1bed80896bb1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_stpl"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/19fd09b8-4e8f-4eb9-9bd6-53933ec97348", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 783/92 of 30 March 1992 adopting definitive measures on the issuing of STM licences for milk and milk products in regard to Spain", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Spain,milk,milk product,quantitative restriction,supplementary trade mechanism", "workIds": "celex:31992R0783,oj:JOL_1992_084_R_0025_027", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Spain", "milk", "milk product", "quantitative restriction", "supplementary trade mechanism"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/19fd09b8-4e8f-4eb9-9bd6-53933ec97348", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1ae9bc2-b0a1-431a-9069-2fd012b34dbc", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 832/92 of 30 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 790/89 fixing the level of additional flat-rate aid for the formation of producers' organizations and the maximum amount applied to aid for quality and marketing improvement in the nut- and locust bean-growing sector", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "modernisation aid,nut,producer organisation,production aid", "workIds": "celex:31992R0832,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0015_031", "eurovoc_concepts": ["modernisation aid", "nut", "producer organisation", "production aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1ae9bc2-b0a1-431a-9069-2fd012b34dbc", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/49966519-4d78-47bd-a866-658c3c407579", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "common organisation of markets,milk,milk product", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0137(01),comnat:COM_1992_0137(01)_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["common organisation of markets", "milk", "milk product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/49966519-4d78-47bd-a866-658c3c407579", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(90) 137 final \n\nBrussels, 30 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nrmilNPIl REGULATION (EEC) \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the \ncommon organization of the market \nin milk and milk products \n\nftxjposftl \n\ntot \n\nO00HCXL KBSDXAm (ETC) \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 adopting general rules \nfor the application of the levy referred to in A r t i c le 5c \nof Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk \nand milk products sector \n\nProposal \n\nf or \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\nestablishing, for die period running from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the \nCommunity reserve for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of \nRegulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\f1 -\n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No \n\n/. of \namending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the \ncommon organization of the market \nin milk and milk products \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in \n\nparticular Article 43 thereof. Having regard to the proposal from the Commission \n\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament \n\n(2) \n\nWhereas the additional-levy arrangements introduced by Article be of Council \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 804/68 \n\n, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No \n\nexpire on 31 March 1992; whereas new arrangements applicable until the year 2000 \n\nare to be adopted as part of reform of the common agricultural policy; whereas it \n\nis necessary in the meantime to continue the present arrangements for a ninth \n\nperiod of twelve months; whereas, under the the Commission proposals, the total \n\nquantity set by this Regulation may be reduced, in return for compensation, for \n\nthe said period so that the rationalization efforts already begun can be \n\ncontinued; \n\nWhereas because of the market situation it was necessary temporarily to suspend \n\npart of the reference quantities from the fourth twelve-month period, pursuant to \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 775/87 \n\n(5). as last amended by Regulation (EEC) \n\nNo 364. 1/90 \n\n; whereas because of persisting surpluses 4,5% of the reference \n\nquantities for deliveries are not included for the ninth period in the guaranteed \n\ntotal quantities; whereas in the course of Reform of the CAP the Council will \n\ndecide definitively what is to happen with these quantities; \n\n( 1) OJ No \n(2) OJ No \n(3) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13 \n(4) OJ No L \n<b) OJ No L 78, 20. 3. 1987, p. 5. (6) OJ No L 362, 27. 12. 1990, p. 9. - 2 -\n\nWhereas, on this assumption, it seems advisable to specify, under the terms of \n\nthis Regulation, the amount for each Member State of the quantities concerned: \n\nWhereas it has been agreed that application of the arrangements to control milk \n\nproduction must not jeopardize the restructuring of agricultural holdings in \n\nthterritory of the former German Democratic Republic; whereas the diffiulties \n\nencountered make it necessary to extend for a further period the flexibility \n\nintroduced into those arrangements for that territory, while ensuring that it \n\nremains the sole beneficiary; \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\nArticle 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 is hereby amended as follows: \n\n1) in the first subparagraph of paragraph i, \"during eight periods. \" is \n\nreplaced by \"during nine periods. \"; \n\n2) the following paragraph 1b is added: \n\n\"lb. In the case of agricultural holdings situated in the territory of the \n\nformer German Democratic Republic, the reference quantity may be \n\nallocated provisionally for the ninth period, provided that the quantity \n\nthus allocated is not modified during that period. \"; \n\n3) the following point (g) is added to paragraph 3: \n\n\"(g) for the twelve-month period from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, and \n\nwithout prejudice during that period, taking account of the Commission \n\nproposals in connection with the Reform of the CAP, to a 1% reduction \n\ncalculated on the basis of the quantity referred to in the second \n\nsubparagraph of this paragraph, the total quantity, expressed in \n\nthousands of tonnes, shall be: \n\n\f- 3 -\n\n(1) \n\nBelgium \nDenmark \nGermany \nGreece \nSpain \nFrance \nIreland \nItaly \nLuxembourg \nNetherlands \nPortugal \nUnited Kingdom \n\n2 881,036 \n4 369,390 \n27 154,205 \n520,615 \n4 361,750 \n23 042,430 \n4 725,600 \n8 224,210 \n237,175 \n10 709,205 \n1 743,420 \n13 702,993 \n\nThe quantities referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 775/87 which are not \n\nincluded in the preceding point are as follows in thousands of tonnes: \n\nBelgium \nDenmark \nGermany \nGreece \nSpain \nFrance \nIreland \nItaly \nLuxembourg \nNetherlands \nUnited Kingdom \n\n144,495 \n219,690 \n\n1 360,215 (2) \n24,165 \n209,250 \n1 153,530 \n237,600 \n395,910 \n11,925 \n539,055 \n689,831 \n\n(1) including 6 157,620 for deliveries to buyers established in the territory of \n\nthe former German Democratic Republic \n\n(2) including 306,18 in the territory of the former German Democratic Republic \n\nThe Council shall take a final decision on the future of these quantities in the \n\ncontext of the Reform of the CAP. Article 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the \n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 April 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all \n\nMember States. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\n\f- 4 -\n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No \n\nof \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 adopting general rules \nfor the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c \nof Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk \nand milk products sector \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nWaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \n\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of \n\nrhe market in milk and milk products \n\n, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No \n\n, and \n\nin particular Article 5c(6) thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission \n\n, \n\n(3) \n\nHaving regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament \n\n> \n\nWhereas the additional-levy arrangements referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 \n\nhave been extended for a ninth period of twelve months; whereas it is accordingly necessary to adapt \n\nthe relevant provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 \n\n, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) \n\n(5) \n\nNo 1639/91 <6); \n\nWhereas it has been agreed that application of the arrangements to control milk production must not \n\njeopardize the restructuring of agricultural holdings in the territory of the former German \n\nDemocratic Republic; whereas the difficulties encountered make it necessary to extend for a further \n\nperiod the flexibility introduced into those arrangements for that territory, while ensuring that it \n\nremains the sole beneficiary; \n\n(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 13 \n(2) OJ No L \n(3) OJ No \n(4) OJ No \n(5) OJ No L 90, 1. 4. 1984, p. 13. (6) OJ No L 150, 15. 6. 1992, p. 35 \n\n\f- 5 -\n\nWhereas the provisions of Article 7(2) and (3) of this Regulation, concerning the \n\nreplacement of purchasers, were the subject, by the judgment of the Court of \n\nJustice of the European Communities of 10 July 1991, of an interpretation such \n\nthat the aforementioned provisions should be clarified accordingly; \n\nWhereas the total quantities for direct sales laid down in the Annex to this \n\nRegulation should be adapted in the same way as the total quantities for \n\ndeliveries under Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, for the same reasons, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 857/84 is hereby amended as follows: \n\n1) in the first subparagraph of Article 4a(1), \"for the eight \n\nperiods \n\n\" \n\nis replaced by \"for the nine \n\nperiods \n\n\". 2) the following is added to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2): \n\n\"However, for the period from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the quantities \n\nshall be established without prejudice to a 1% reduction, taking account of \n\nthe Commission proposals in connection with the Reform of the CAP, during \n\nthat period. \" \n\n\f- 6 -\n\n3) in Article 7: \n\n(a) in the third subparagraph of paragraph 1, \"for the eighth twelve-month \n\nperiod. \" is replaced by \"for the ninth twelve-month period. \u2022. \"; \n\n(b) the first subparagraph of paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: \n\n\"The Member States may provide that part of the quantities referred to in \n\nparagraph 1 shall be added to the reserve mentioned in Article 5 or, \n\ndepending on the circumstances, to the reserve mentioned in \n\nArticle 8(3). \" \n\n4) in the first subparagraph of Article 9(4), \"for the eight. periods. \" is \n\nreplaced by \"for the nine. periods. \"; \n\n5) the following column shall be added after the column headed \n\n\"1. 4. 1991-31. 3. 1992\": \n\nBelgium \nDenmark \nGermany \nGreece \nSpain \nFrance \nIreland \nItaly \nLuxembourg \nNetherlands \nPortugal \nUnited Kingdom \n\n1. 4. 1992-\n31. 3. 1993 \n\n373,193 \n0,951 \n150^038 \n4,528 \n516,950 \n732,824 \n15,210 \n717,870 \n0,951 \n102,307 \n118. 580 \n392,868 \n\nfl) \n\n(1) including 58,801 for the territory of the former German \n\nDemocratic Republic\" \n\n\f- 7 -\n\nArticle 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the \n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 April 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all \n\nMember States. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\n\f1. 4. 92 \n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities \n\nNo L 86/87 \n\ncP \n\nC O U N C IL REGULATION (EEC) No 818/92 \n\nof 31 March 1992 \n\nestablishing, for the period running from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the \nC o m m u n i ty reserve for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of \nRegulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European \nEconomic Community, \n\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of \n27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market \nin milk and milk products ('), as last amended by Regula \ntion (EEC) No 816/92 (2), and in particular Article 5c (6) \nthereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission (3), \n\nreserve for \n\nthe Community \n\nWhereas Article 5c (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 \nprovides for the establishment of a Community reserve in \norder to supplement, at the beginning of each 12-month \nperiod, the overall guaranteed quantities of Member States \nin which the levy scheme gives rise to particular difficul \nties ; whereas \nthe ninth \n12-month period should be again fixed at 2 082 885,740 \ntonnes, including 443 000 tonnes to be allocated in the \nMember States where the implementation of the \nlevy \nsystem still raises special difficulties, 600 000 tonnes to \nalleviate difficulties encountered by the Member States in \nto \nallocating the specific reference quantities pursuant \nArticle 3a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of \n31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application \nof the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) \nNo 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (4) as last \n(EEC) No 817/92(0, and \namended by Regulation \n1 039 885,740 tonnes to alleviate the difficulties encoun \ntered by the Member States in allocating the additional or \n\nspecific \nproducers as defined in Article 3b of that Regulation, \n\nto certain categories of \n\nreference quantities \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION : \n\nArticle 1 \n\nFor the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, the \nCommunity reserve provided for in Article 5c (4) of Regu \nlation (EEC) No 804/68 shall be 2 082 885,740 tonnes, of \nwhich : \n\n\u2014 443 000 tonnes shall be allocated in certain Member \nStates where the implementation of the levy system \nraises special difficulties, \n\n\u2014 600 000 tonnes shall be to alleviate the difficulties \nencountered by the Member States in allocating the \nspecific reference quantities pursuant to Article 3a of \nRegulation (EEC) No 857/84, \n\n\u2014 1 039 885,740 tonnes shall be for producers as referred \nto in Article 3b of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84. Article 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its \npublication \nthe European \nCommunities. the Official Journal \n\nin \n\nof \n\nIt shall apply from the beginning of the ninth 12-month \nperiod of the additional levy system. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member \nStates. Done at Brussels, 31 March 1992. For the Council \n\nThe President \n\nArlindo MARQUES CUNHA \n\n(') OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968. p. 13. (') See page 83 of this Official Journal. (J) OJ No C 337, 31. 12. 1991, p. 34. (*) OJ No L 90, 1. 4. 1984, p. 13. (*) See page 85 of this Official Journal. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM (92) 137 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-154-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42894-5 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/423ac65d-742d-4024-b578-818d65f21ce6", "title": "Bilans de l'\u00e9nergie 1989-1990.,Energiebilanzen 1989-1990.,Energy balance sheets 1989-1990 : 1992 edition.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Eurostat", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "coal,electrical energy,energy distribution,energy market,energy production,energy use,fuel,gas,petroleum", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CA7291140", "eurovoc_concepts": ["coal", "electrical energy", "energy distribution", "energy market", "energy production", "energy use", "fuel", "gas", "petroleum"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/423ac65d-742d-4024-b578-818d65f21ce6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/509c452a-058e-4d2c-84e3-55fe55d4aa2a", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 819/92 of 30 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 112/90 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain compact disc players originating in Japan and the Republic of Korea and collecting definitively the provisional duty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Japan,South Korea,dumping,sound reproduction equipment", "workIds": "celex:31992R0819,oj:JOL_1992_087_R_0001_033", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Japan", "South Korea", "dumping", "sound reproduction equipment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/509c452a-058e-4d2c-84e3-55fe55d4aa2a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a4e0b06b-912f-4dc1-8ead-6bd1a932354b", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 860/92 of 30 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "tobacco", "workIds": "celex:31992R0860,oj:JOL_1992_091_R_0001_014", "eurovoc_concepts": ["tobacco"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a4e0b06b-912f-4dc1-8ead-6bd1a932354b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/eb0bef86-78d9-4ec3-bf5c-1865a598f9ae", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 776/92 of 30 March 1992 on the supply of common wheat to the People's Republic of Bangladesh as food aid", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Bangladesh,common wheat,food aid", "workIds": "celex:31992R0776,oj:JOL_1992_084_R_0007_020", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Bangladesh", "common wheat", "food aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/eb0bef86-78d9-4ec3-bf5c-1865a598f9ae", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/80f9269f-b84c-49ed-8811-9ab4012e1b83", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) authorizing an enchanced aid system for the formation of producers' organizations in the French overseas departments, in the Canary Islands, in Madeira and in the Azores", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "Azores,Canary Islands,French overseas department and region,Madeira,fishery product,producer organisation", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0103,comnat:COM_1992_0103_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_100_R_0013_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Azores", "Canary Islands", "French overseas department and region", "Madeira", "fishery product", "producer organisation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/80f9269f-b84c-49ed-8811-9ab4012e1b83", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "d ^ M M ^ Wi OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(92) 103 final \n\nBrussels, 30 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEQ \n\nauthorizing an Enhanced aid system for the formation of \n\nproducers' orgahilations in the French overseas departments, \n\nin the 6ariary Islands, in Madeira and in the Azores \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nregions \n\nThe Council \nremoter \nthe \npolicies \nto \n\nAzores \n\ntheir \n\nFrench \n\nhas \n\nadopted \n(the \nand Madeira) \nof \neach \nand \n\nthose \ninsular \n\nas part \n\nof \noverseas \nappropriate \nregions \n\n- \n\nnature \n\nan overall \n\npolicy \n\ndepartments, \nprogrammes \n\nprogrammes \n\nthe \n(POSEI). the \n\nfor \nof \n\ncovering \nCanary \napplying \noptions \n\nall \n\nthe \nIslands, \ncommon \nspecific \n\nin \nremote \n\nOn 22 December \nPoseidom \n1991, \nIslands) \n\nprogramme \nby Decisions \n\nand Poseima \n\n1989 \n\nthe \n\n(for \n\nCouncil \nthe French \n\nadopted, \n\noverseas \n\n91/314/EEC \n(Azores \n\nand \nand Madeira) \n\n91/315/EEC, \n\nby Decision \ndepartments) \nthe \n\n89/687/EEC, \n\nand \nPoseican \n\non 26 \n\nthe \nJune \n(Canary \n\nprogrammes \n\nrespectively. special \n\nThe \naccession \nRegulation \ntherefore, \nunder \n\nthe \n\nstatus \n\nto \n\nthe \n(EEC) \n\nthe Canary \n\nof \nCommunity, \nNo \n\n1911/91 \n\nIslands, \nwas modified \n26 \nof \nof Community \nthat \nin \ndown \n\nJune \nlaw \n\nagreed \n\nat \nthe \nsimultaneously \n1991. From \n\ntime \n\n1 \n\nof \nby \nJuly \n\napply \nRegulation. to \n\nthe Canary \n\nthe \n\nprovisions \n\nconditions \n\nlaid \n\nThe Council \nmeasures \nproducers' \n\nDecisions \n\nfor \n\nfisheries, \n\nsetting \nin \n\norganizations. up Poseican \n\nand Poseima \n\ncontain \n\nparticular \n\na reinforced \n\nsystem \n\nof \n\naid \n\nSpain's \nCouncil \n1991, \nIslands \n\nspecific \nfor \n\nIn \nthe \ncontained \nrequested \noverseas \n\ncontext \nin \n\nof \n\nthe \n\nofficially \n\nthe \nPoseidom \nthat \n\nimplementation \n\nprogramme, \nsame \n\ntype \n\nthe \n\ndepartments. view \n\nIn \nhandled \narrangements \nof \norganization \n\nsuch \n\nof \n\nthe \n\nof \n\nfact \nnecessity \nthe \n\nfor \norganizations \nin \n\nthose \n\nthat \n\nall \nby \n\ngrant \n\nof \n\nwould \n\nregions. transactions \nproducers' \nenhanced \nfacilitate \n\nof \nthe \nof aid \n\nthe \n\nagricultural \n\nFrench \n\nauthorities \n\nbe granted \n\nto \n\nthe \n\nmeasures \nhave \nFrench \n\nthe \non \norganizations, \n\nfisheries \n\naid \n\nto \n\nthe \n\nencourage \noperation \n\nthe \nof \n\nthe \n\nmarket \n\nare \nexceptional \nformation \nmaket \n\nexceptional \n\nThese \n(EEC) No 3687/91 \nproducts, \nTreaty \nGerman \n\nhave \nof Accession \n\nunification. arrangements, \non \nthe \nalready \n\ncommon \n\nintroduced \norganization \n\nby Article \n\n6 of \n\nof \n\nthe market \n\nin \n\nbeen \nSpain \n\napplied, \n\nnotably \n\nand Portugal \n\nto \n\nin \nthe \n\nthe \n\ncontext \nCommunity, \n\nof \n\nRegulation \nfishery \nthe \nof \n\nof \nand \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\nauthorizing an enhanced aid system for the formation of \n\nproducers' organizations in the French overseas departments, \n\nin the Canary Islands, in Madeira and in the Azores \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic \n\nCommunity, and in particular Articles 42 and 43 thereof. Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament, \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee, \n\nWhereas the programmes of options specific to the remote and insular \n\nnature of the French overseas departments (POSEIDOM), of the Canary \n\nIslands (Poseican) and of Madeira and the Azores (Poseima), established \n\nby Council Decisions 89/687/EEC(1), 91/314/EEc(2> and 91/315/EEC<3> \n\nrespectively, aim to create an appropriate framework for the \n\napplication of common policies for each of the ultra-peripheral regions \n\nconcerned; whereas, in order to promote the economic and social \n\ndevelopment of the regions in question, these specific programmes \n\nintroduce measures to improve conditions for the production and \n\nmarketing of fishery products; \n\nWhereas Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3687/91 of 28 November \n\n1991 on the common organization of the market in fishery products(4) \n\nprovides that the Member States may make available aid to encourage the \n\nformation and facilitate the operation of producers' organizations; \n\n(1) OJ No L 399, 30. 12-1989, p. 39. (2) OJ No L 171, 29. 6. 1991, p. 5. (3) OJ No L 171, 29. 6. 1991, p. 10. (4) OJ No L 354, 23. 12. 1991, p. 1. - 4 -\n\nWhereas, in view of the above, France, Spain and Portugal should be \n\npermitted to make available, for a transitory period in the French \n\noverseas departments in the Canary Islands, in Madeira and in the \n\nAzores respectively, enhanced aid for the formation and operation of \n\nproducers' organizations, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\n1. Notwithstanding \n\nArticle 6(2) \n\nof \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 3687/91, \n\nFrance, Spain and Portugal are hereby authorized to make available \n\nthe aid provided for in Article 6(1) of that Regulation during the \n\nfive years following the date of their recognition, to producers' \n\norganizations which are formed in the French overseas departments, \n\nin the Canary Islands, in Madeira and in the Azores respectively, \n\nfor a period of five years from the entry into force of this \n\nRegulation. 2. The aid shall be granted according to the following conditions: \n\n- \n\nThe aid shall amount for the first, second, third, fourth and \n\nfifth years to not more than 5%, 4%, 3%, 2% and 1% respectively \n\nof the value of production marketed under the auspices of the \n\nproducers' organization. It may not, however, exceed 80%, 70%, 60%, 40% and 20% of the \n\norganizations' administrative expenses for the first, second, \n\nthird, fourth and fifth years respectively. - \n\nPayment of the aid shall be made within seven years of the date \n\nof recognition. Article 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in \n\nthe Official Journal of the European Communities. - 5 -\n\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly \n\napplicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\nThe President \n\n\f- 6 -\n\nF I N A N C I AL \n\nf i T A T E M E NT \n\nJMTK \n\n1. BUDCLT LINS COMCUWED t \n\nB?- 9 33 \n\n2* ACTION i Draft Council Regulation (EEC) n\u00b0 \n\nof \n?/91 for the formation of producers' organizations in \nestablished in Regulation (EEC) n\u00b0 3687/91 \nthe French overseas departsments, in the Canary Islands , in Madeira and in the Azores \n\n1992 authorizing an enhanced aid system as I \n\n3. LECAL BASIS , Articles 42 and 43 od Treaty ; Regulation (CEE) n\u00b0 3687/91 \n\n4. OBJECTIVES i To promote the establishment and operation of the POs in these extremely peripheral regional \n\n5. FINANCIAL CONSEQULJJCE \n\nFOR THE MARKETING TEAR \n\nCURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR \nL \n\n1 \n\nFOLLOWING FINANCIAL TEAR \n\nI \n\n) \n\n5. 0 Exrjn. 'DiTuan: \n\n-CHARGED TO THE EC BUDCET \n( RQUNU6/IHTERVENTI OUS ) \n\n-CHARCEB TO NATIONAL ADMIHISTR. -CHARCED TO OTHER NATIONAL CROUPS \n\n5. 1 RECEIPTS \n\n-OVN RESOUnC'JS OF TfE EC \n(LEVIEG/CUSTOM DUTIES) \n\n-UATIOMAL \n\n5. 0. 1 PLURIA. '. 'NUAL PATTERN OF EXPENDITURE \n\n5. 1. 1 PLURIAMNUAL PATTERN OP RECEIPTS \n\n220. 000 Ecus \n\nTEAR \n\n93 \n\nTEAR \n\nTEAR \n\n5\u00bb2 KETUO\u00a9 OF CALCULATION : Method of calculation estimate in line with the following consideration : \n\nvalue of the product sold management costs, aid granted to a PO of the same \nsize, set up in Spain and Portugal \n\n6. 0 FINANCING POSSIBLE WITH CREDITS INSCRIBED IN RELEVANT CHAPTER OF CURRENT BUDGET T \n\n6. 1 FINANCING POSSIBLE 3Y TRANSFER BST/2EH CHAPTERS OF CURRENT BUDCET ? \n\n6. 2 NECESSITY FOR A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDCET 7 \n\n6. 3 CREDITS TO BE WRITTEN INTO FUTURE BUDGETS ? \n\na \n\nCOMMENTS \n\n| \n\nX3fl\u00a3/NO \n\nKB?/\u2122 \n\nXXB/NO \n\nT E S / K* \n\n\f- 7 -\n\nISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM (92) 103 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\nn 03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-114-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42115-0 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 T ATTembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d9727e9b-8551-43ea-a0b5-8d3b6e8497f4", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE relating to the mechanical coupling devices of motor vehicles and their trailers and their attachment to these vehicles", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-30", "subjects": "European standard,approximation of laws,commercial vehicle,marketing standard,motor vehicle,technical standard", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0108,comnat:COM_1992_0108_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_134_R_0036_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European standard", "approximation of laws", "commercial vehicle", "marketing standard", "motor vehicle", "technical standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d9727e9b-8551-43ea-a0b5-8d3b6e8497f4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(92) 108 final - SYN 408 \n\nBrussels, 30 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DIRECTIVE \n\nrelating to the mechanical coupling devices of motor vehicles \n\nand their trailers and their attachment to these vehicles \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nBACKGROUND \n\n1. The implementation of the EEC type-approval procedure for motor \nvehicles and their trailers covered by Council Directive \n70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970(1) comprises especially the \nadoption of the last separate Directives for passenger cars \n(tyres, masses and dimensions, safety glazing). For this reason \nthe Commission submitted proposals in January 1990. Furthermore, \nthe framework Directive assigns the adoption of special provisions \nfor goods vehicles, buses and coaches. To take care of the precise \nand comprehensive content of these provisions it is deemed \nCommunity \nopportune \nrequirements, inter alia, masses and dimensions (items 2. 2, 2. 4, \n2. 6 and 2. 8 of Annex II), speed limiters and external projections \nof cabs (item 12. 2 and 12. 4 of Annex II) as special safety \nprovisions for goods vehicles, buses and coaches. The Commission \nsubmitted the relevant draft Directives in April 1991. With regard \nto mechanical coupling devices (item 11 of Annex II) harmonized \nprovisions have to be established to guarantee compatibility and \ninterchangeability of motor vehicles and trailers. particular \n\nharmonized \n\nadopt \n\nto \n\nin \n\n2. The European Parliament adopted, on the 13 March 1984, a \nresolution on the introduction of a programme of Community \nmeasures to promote road safety(2)# anci \u00a9n the 18 February 1986 \nanother resolution on common measures to reduce road accidents as \npart of the Community's programme for Road Safety Year 1986(3). The Council and the Commission are requested by these resolutions \nto take the necessary measures with the aim of promoting road \nsafety. 3. In view of the entry into force of the Single European Act and of \nthe aim of a single internal market to be achieved by the end of \n1992, it is now urgent that the remaining measures that are needed \nto complete EEC type-approval should be adopted. 4. The legal/administrative procedure put forward in the enacting \nterms of these proposals does not depart from that laid down in \nframework Directive 70/156/EEC that is currently in force except \nas regards the procedure for adaptation to technical progress, \nwhereby the Regulatory Committee has been replaced by the Advisory \nCommittee. Indeed, the Commission intends to apply the provisions \nof the Single Act, which provide for the delegation of power to \nthe Commission in order to proceed with this task. 5. With regard to the other options, such as that of the method of \nharmonization (total or optional), the Commission is still \napplying the solutions currently in force. However, the Commission does not intend to neglect this important \nmatter; considering that the total harmonization will be essential \nin order to fully achieve the large single market, it intends to \nput forward relevant proposals when the framework Directive \n70/156/EEC is next amended. (1) O J N oL 42, 23. 2. 1970, p. 1. (2) OJ No C 104, 16. 4. 1984, p. 38. (3) OJ No C 68, 24. 3. 1986, p. 35. - 3 -\n\nII. REASONS FOR AND CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL OF THE DIRECTIVE RELATING TO \nMECHANICAL COUPLING DEVICES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES AND THEIR TRAILERS \n\nFor the completion of the EEC whole vehicle type-approval of certain \ncategories of motor vehicles and trailers the framework Directive \n70/156/EEC (item 11. of Annex II) requires special provisions for the \nconnections between drawing vehicles and trailers and semi-trailers. The mechanical coupling devices, e. g. drawbar couplings, fifth wheel \ncouplings and ball couplings all have to meet these special \nrequirements if they are fitted to road vehicles. In view of the single internal market to be achieved by the end of \n1992 it is necessary to facilitate the interchangeability of motor \nvehicles and trailers within the territory of the Community and to \nharmonize the technical requirements of mechanical coupling devices. The harmonization of these provisions can contribute to a decrease in \nthe mileage of road vehicles and lead to a reduction in fuel \nconsumption, noise and pollutant emissions. The draft proposal of this Council Directive is based mainly on the \nECE (Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations) Regulation \nNo 55 with respect to strength requirements and test procedures. Furthermore international ISO-standards have been taken into account \nfor uniform dimensions of mechanical coupling systems connecting the \nroad vehicles to guarantee the compatibility of the vehicle coupling \ndevices throughout the Community. For this reason it is strongly \nrecommended that only certain classes of coupling devices with \nspecified dimensions should be used in all Member States, but in \nexceptional cases EEC type-approvals may be granted for special \ncoupling devices designed for special purposes and used exclusively on \nthe national territory of a single Member State. - 4 -\n\nProposal for a \nCOUNCIL DIRECTIVE \n\nrelating to the mechanical coupling devices of motor vehicles \nand their trailers and their attachment to these vehicles \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \nand in particular Article 100a thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission^), \n\nIn cooperation with the European Parliament(2)f \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(^), \n\nWhereas it is important to adopt measures with the aim of progressively \nestablishing the internal market over a period expiring on 31 December \n1992; whereas the internal market shall comprise an area without internal \nfrontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and \ncapital is ensured; \n\nWhereas the technical requirements which motor vehicles and their trailers \nmust satisfy pursuant to national laws relate, inter alia, to the \nmechanical couplings of such vehicles; \n\nWhereas these requirements differ from one Member State to another; whereas \nit is therefore necessary that all Member States adopt the same \nrequirements either in addition to or in place of their existing rules in \norder to allow, in particular, the EEC type-approval procedure which was \nthe subject of Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the \napproximation of the laws of Member States relating to the type-approval of \nmotor vehicles and their trailers(*), as last amended by Directive \n87/403/EEC(5), to be implemented; \n\nWhereas, with the view of improving road safety and facilitating the \ninterchangeability of motor vehicles and trailers in international traffic, \nit is considered important that all kinds of vehicles forming a road train \nor being an articulated vehicle shall be equipped with standardized and \nharmonized mechanical coupling systems; \n\nWhereas it is desirable to follow the technical requirements of the ECE \n(Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations) Regulation No 55 \nrelating to the uniform provisions concerning mechanical coupling \ncomponents of combinations of vehicles; Regulation No 55 is annexed to the \nAgreement of 20 March 1958 concerning the adoption of uniform conditions of \napproval and reciprocal recognition of approval for motor vehicle equipment \nand parts; \n\n(1) OJ No C \n(2) OJ No C \n(3) OJ No C \n(4) OJ No L 42, 23. 2, 1970, p. 1. (5) OJ No L 220, 8. 8. 1987, p. 44. - 5 -\n\nWhereas mainly international standards (ISO) have been taken into \nconsideration for uniform dimensions of mechanical coupling systems to \nensure interchangeability of the individual vehicles forming road trains or \narticulated vehicles and to guarantee a free traffic within the Member \nStates; \n\nWhereas in all cases where the Council confers powers upon the Commission \nto implement rules laid down in the motor vehicle sector it is appropriate \nto provide for a procedure of prior consultation between the Commission and \nthe Member States within an advisory committee, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: \n\nFor the purpose of this Directive: \n\nArticle 1 \n\n- \n\n\"vehicle\" means any motor vehicle intended for use on the road, with \nspeed exceeding 25km/h, and its trailers, with the exception of \nvehicles which run on rails and of agricultural tractors and \nmachinery; \n\n\"mechanical coupling type\" means a mechanical coupling device for \nwhich type-approval of a component within the meaning of Article 9a of \nDirective 70/156/EEC may be granted. Member States may not refuse: \n\nArticle 2 \n\n- \n\nEEC type-approval or national type-approval for a vehicle, or refuse \nor prohibit the sale, registration, entry into service or use of a \nvehicle on grounds relating to its optional equipment with mechanical \ncoupling devices, \n\nEEC component type-approval or national component type-approval for a \nmechanical coupling, or prohibit the sale or use of a mechanical \ncoupling device, \n\nif the requirements of the Annexes are satisfied. Article 3 \n\nWith effect from 1 October 1995 Member States may prohibit the first entry \ninto service of vehicles of which the mechanical coupling devices do not \ncomply with the provisions of this Directive. Article 4 \n\nAny amendments necessary to adapt the requirements of the Annexes to \ntechnical progress shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance with \nthe procedure laid down in Article 5. The Commission shall be assisted by the committee established under Article \n12 of Directive 70/156/EEC. Article 5 \n\n\f- 6 -\n\nThe representative of the Commission shall submit to the committee a draft \nof the measures to be taken. The committee shall deliver its opinion on \nthe draft within a time-limit which the Chairman may lay down according to \nthe urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking a vote. The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member \nState shall have the right to ask to have its position recorded in the \nminutes. The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by \nthe committee. It shall inform the committee of the manner in which its \nopinion has been taken into account. Article 6 \n\nMember States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and \nadministrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by \n30 June 1993. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. When Member States adopt these provisions, these shall contain a reference \nto this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of \ntheir official publication. The procedure for such reference shall be \nadopted by Member States. This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Article 7 \n\nDone at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\nThe President \n\n\f1. \u20221. 1. 1. 2. - 7 -\n\nANNEX I \n\nSCOPE \n\nThis Directive applies to the mechanical coupling devices for \nmotor vehicles and their trailers and the attachment of these \ndevices to the road vehicles, as described in Article 1. of this \nDirective. This Directive states the requirements which mechanical coupling \ndevices intended for use between combinations of vehicles must \nsatisfy in order to: \n\nensure compatiblity when combining motor vehicles with \ndifferent types of trailer \n\n- ensure the safe coupling together of the vehicles under all \n\nconditions of use \n\n- ensure safe procedures for coupling and uncoupling \n\n1. 3. The coupling devices are classified according to type, and \ndistinguishing between: \n\n- standard coupling devices \n\n- non-standard coupling devices \n\nThe classification is as follows: \n\n1. 3. 1. Class A: Coupling balls and towing brackets \n(see Annex V, Section 1) \n\n1. 3. 1. 1. Class A50-1 to A50-3 : standard coupling balls 50 and flange \n\ntype towing brackets \n\n1. 3. 1. 2. Class A50-X: Non-standard coupling balls 50 and \n\ntowing brackets \n\n1. 3. 2. Class B50-X: Non-standard coupling heads 50 \n\n(see Annex V, Section 2) \n\n1. 3. 3. Class C: Automatic drawbar couplings \n\n1. 3. 3. 1. Class C50: Drawbar couplings 50 \nClass C50-1 to C50-7: Standard drawbar couplings 50 \n\n(See Annex V, Section 3, \nTables 3 and 4) \n\n1. 3. 3. 2. Class C50-X:Non-standard drawbar couplings 50 \n\n1. 3. 4. Class D: \n\nDrawbar eyes \n\n1. 3. 4. 1. Class D50 \nClass D50-A:Standard drawbar eyes D50 for welding attachment \n\nDrawbar eyes 50 \n\n(See Annex V, Fig. 9, Table 5) \n\n\f- 8 -\n\nClass D50-B:Standard drawbar eyes 50 for screwing attachment \n\n(See Annex V, Fig. 10, Table 5) \n\nclass D50-C:Standard drawbar eyes D50-C1 and D50-C2 for bolting \n\nattachment \n(See Annex V, Fig. 11 and 12, Table 5) \n\n1. 3. 4. 2. class D50-X:Non-standard drawbar eyes 50 \n\n(See Annex V, Fig 9) \n\n1. 3. 5. class E: \n\nNon-standard drawbars \n\n1. 3. 6. Class F: \n\nNon-standard mounting frames \n\n1. 3. 7. class G: \n\nFifth wheel couplings \n\n1. 3. 7. 1. Class G50: Standard fifth wheel couplings 50 \n\n(See Annex V, Fig. 15, Table 7) \n\n1. 3. 7. 2. Class G50-X:Non-standard fifth wheel couplings 50 \n\n1. 3. 8. Class H: \n\nFifth wheel coupling pins \n\n1. 3. 8. 1. Class H50-X:Non-standard fifth wheel coupling pins 50 \n\n1. 3. 9. Class J: \n\nNon-standard mounting plates \n\n1. 3. 10. Class S: \n\nNon-standard miscellaneous coupling devices \n\n2. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 2. 1. 3. Definitions \n\nMechanical coupling devices between motor vehicles and trailers \nare all parts and devices on the frames, load-bearing parts of \nthe bodywork and chassis of the vehicles by means of which \ntowing and towed vehicles are connected together. It also includes fixed or detachable parts for the attachment, \nadjustment or operation of the above-mentioned coupling devices. The coupling balls and towing brackets in 1. 3. 1. are mechanical \ncoupling devices employing a spherical device and brackets on \nthe towing vehicle for connecting to the trailer by means of a \ncoupling head. The coupling heads in 1. 3. 2. are mechanical coupling devices on \nthe drawbar of trailers for connecting to a coupling ball on the \ntowing vehicle. The drawbar couplings in 1. 3. 3. are mechanical coupling devices \nWith a jaw and an automatic closing and locking pin on the \ntowing vehicle for connecting to the trailer by means of a \ndrawbar eye. 2. 1. 4. The drawbar eyes in 1. 3. 4. are mechanical coupling devices on \nthe drawbar of trailers having a parallel hole for connecting to \n\n\f2. 1. 5. 2. 1. 6. 2. 1. 7. 2. 1. 8. 2. 1. 9. 2. 1. 10. 2. 1. 11. 2. 1. 12. - 9 -\n\nthe automatic drawbar couplings. The drawbars in 1. 3. 5. comprises overrun devices and similar \nitems of equipment mounted on the front of the towed vehicle or \nto the vehicle chassis, which is suitable for coupling to a \ntowing vehicle by means of drawbar eyes, coupling heads and \nsimilar coupling devices. Drawbars can be attached to the trailer so as to move freely in \nthe vertical plane and therefore support no vertical load, so \ncalled hinged drawbars, or be fixed in the vertical plane so as \nto support a vertical load, so called rigid drawbars. Drawbars \nfixed in the vertical plane can be either rigid or sprung. Drawbars can be equipped with a height adjusting device to \npermit the adjustment of the drawbar eye of ball coupling to the \nheight of the jaw or coupling ball. Drawbars may also comprise more than one component, be \nadjustable or cranked. This directive concernes drawbars only of the type which forms a \nseparate unit, which is not part of the chassis of the towed \nvehicle. The mounting frames in 1. 3. 6. are all parts and devices placed \nbetween the coupling devices, such as coupling balls, drawbar \ncouplings and fifth wheel couplings (with mounting plates), and \nthe frame (e. g. rear cross member), the load-bearing bodywork or \nthe chassis of the towing vehicle. The fifth wheel couplings in 1. 3. 7. are plate-like coupling \ndevices used on towing vehicles having an automatic coupling \nlock and connecting to the fifth wheel coupling pins in 1. 3. 8. The fifth wheel coupling pins in 1. 3. 8. are a coupling device in \nthe form of a pin for mounting on a semi-trailer and connecting \nto the towing vehicle by means of a fifth wheel coupling. The mounting plates in 1. 3. 9. are all parts and devices used for \nattaching fifth wheel couplings to the frame of the towing \nvehicle. The mounting plate may have provision to move \nhorizontally (i. e. sliding fifth wheel). Steering wedges are components mounted on semi-trailers which \ncontrol positive steering of the trailer in conjunction with the \nfifth wheel coupling. Standard coupling devices are classified in 1. 3. and conform to \nstandard dimensions and standard characteristic values as given \nin this directive. They are interchangeable within their class, \nindependent of type and manufacturer. Non-standard coupling devices are those of classes A to J which \ndo not fall under the classification of standard coupling \ndevices but which can be connected to standard coupling devices \nof the relevant classes. - 10 -\n\n2. 1. 13. 2. 1. 14. 2. 1. 15. The miscellaneous coupling devices for transitional or \nexceptional use in 1. 3. 10. are mechanical coupling devices which \ndo not belong to any of the Classes A to J (e. g. coupling \ndevices according to existing national standards or for heavy \ntransport). Remote control devices are devices which enable in case of in \ninaccessible coupling devices, the coupling device to be \noperated from the side of the vehicle or from the driving cab. Remote indicators are indicating devices which indicate to the \nvehicle driver in his cab that coupling has been effected and \nthe safety devices have engaged. 2. 1. 16. A type of mechanical coupling device means a device which do not \ndiffer in such essential aspects as: \n\n2. 1. 16. 1. Class of coupling device \n\n2. 1. 16. 2. Factory mark or trade name \n\n2. 1. 16. 3. External shape or principal dimensions or other fundamental \ndifferences in design \n\n2. 1. 16. 4. characteristic values D, S, V and U \n\n2. 1. 17. 2. 1. 18. A coupling procedure is automatic if backing the towing vehicle \nagainst the trailer is sufficient to engage the coupling \ncompletely and properly without any external intervention, to \nsecure it automotically and to indicate proper engagement of the \nsafety devices. An automatic coupling procedure requires the \nuse of automatic couplings. The \"D-value\" is defined as the theoretical reference force for \nthe horizontal force between towing vehicle and trailer. The D-value is taken as the basis for horizontal loads in the \ndynamic tests. For mechanical coupling devices unsuitable for transmitting \nvertical bearing loads the value is: \n\nT x R \n\nD = g x \n\n( kN) \n\nT + R \n\nFor mechanical coupling devices suitable for centre axle \ntrailers the value is: \n\nT x c \n\nD = g x \n\n(kN) \n\nT + C \n\n\fFor fifth wheel couplings on towing tractors and vehicles of \ncomparable type the value is: \n\n- 11 -\n\n0. 6 x T x R \n\nD = g x \n\n(kN) \n\nT + R - U \n\nWhere: \n\nT = \n\nR = \n\nTechnically permissible maximum mass in t of the towing \nvehicle (also towing tractors) including, if necessary, \nthe vertical load of a centre axle trailer \n\nTechnically permissible maximum mass in t of the full \ntrailer with drawbar free to move in the vertical plane \nor of the semi-trailer \n\nC = \n\nSum of the axle loads of the centre axle trailer carrying \nmaximum permissible load, in t (see 2. 1. 20. ) \n\nU = \n\nFifth wheel imposed vertical load in t \n\ns = \n\n9 = \n\nThe static vertical load s in kg is the proportion of the \nmass of the centre axle trailer exerted under static \nconditions at the coupling point \n\nacceleration due to gravity (assumed as 9,81 m/s2) \n\n2. 1. 19. The \"V-value\" is defined as the theoretical reference force for \nthe amplitude of the vertical force between towing vehicle and \ncentre axle trailers (see 2. 1. 21. ). The V-value is taken as a basis for the vertical test loads in \nthe dynamic tests. where \n\nV = a \u2022 X2 \u2022 C \nT2 \n\na is an equivalent vertical acceleration in the coupling point, \ndependent on the kind of suspension on the rear axle(s) of \nthe towing vehicle including a constant factor: \na^ = 1. 8 m/s2 \nfor vehicles with air suspension or equivalent \n\n&2 ~ 2. 4 m/s2 for vehicles with other suspension \n\nx is the length of the loading area of the trailer, in meters, \n\nsee fig. l \n\n1 is the theoretical drawbar length, i. e. the distance between \nthe centre of the drawbar eye and the centre of the axle \nassembly, in meters, see fig. l \n\nx2 > 1,0 in all cases \nT2 \" \n\n\f- 12 -\n\nFig. 1 \n\nDimensions of the centre axle trailer \n\n2. 1. 20. 2. 1. 21 \n\n2. 1. 22 \n\n\"Centre-axle trailer\" means a towed vehicle equipped with a \ntowing device which cannot move vertically (in relation to the \ntrailer), and in which the axle(s) is (are) positioned close to \nthe centre of gravity of the vehicle (when uniformly loaded) \nsuch that only a small vertical load, not exceeding 10 % of the \nmaximum mass of the trailer or 1000 kg (whichever is the lesser) \nis transmitted to the drawing vehicle. The maximum mass of a centre-axle trailer to be taken into \nconsideration shall be the mass transmitted to the ground by the \naxle(s) of the centre-axle trailer when coupled to the drawing \nvehicle and laden with a maximum load. For vehicles not falling clearly in any of the above categories \nthey shall be treated in the same way as the type they most \nclosely resemble. \"Vehicle type\" means vehicles which do not differ with respect \nto the following main characteristics: \nThe structure, dimensions, shape and materials of the rear part \nof the towing vehicle, or the front part in the case of a \ntrailer, in so far as they have a bearing on the requirements of \nAnnex VII. 3. 3. 1. EEC Type Approval for a Component \n\nApplication for EEC type approval \n\n\f- 13 -\n\n3. 1. 1. 3. 1. 2. An application for EEC Component type approval for a type of \nmechanical coupling device must be submitted by the manufacturer \nof the coupling device. For each type of a mechanical coupling device the application \nmust be accompagnied by the following documentation (in \ntriplicate): \n\n3. 1. 2. 1. A technical description of the coupling device, its design and \nmode of operation. 3. 1. 2. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 3. 1. 3. 3. 1. 4. 3. 1. 5. Data on the characteristic values, the classification and, if \nnecessary, the restricted field of application (specific types \nof vehicles only). Drawings of the principal parts of the coupling device and an \nassembly drawing for each version giving all principal \ndimensions, materials and the position for the EEC approval \nmark. It must also be possible to see how the coupling device is \nmounted on the vehicle and what means of attachment are \nemployed. The Technical Department which performs or approves the tests \nfor type approval must be provided with a specimen coupling \ndevice which should normally be unpainted. The Technical \nDepartment and other approval authorities may also request \nadditional specimens. The Technical Service which performs or approves the tests for \ntype approval may also request specificl parts, additional \ndrawings or samples of the materials used. The competent authority shall verify the existence of \nsatisfactory arrangements for ensuring effective control of the \nconformity of production of the mechanical coupling device \nbefore type approval is granted. 3. 2. Marking of specimen \n\n3. 2. 1. Each of the specimens of the particular type of coupling device \nin 3. 1. 3 for which an application for EEC component type \napproval has been submitted must be marked as follows: \n\n3. 2. 2. Factory mark, trade name or manufacturer's name (and trade mark \nif appropriate) \n\n3. 2. 3. Type and, if applicable, version \n\n3. 2. 4. A sufficiently large space for the EEC approval mark and the \nadditional information according to 3. 3. 4. 3. 3. Granting of component type approval \n\n\f3. 3. 1. 3. 3. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 4. - 14 -\n\nIf the mechanical coupling device submitted for approval \npursuant to this Directive meets the requirements of item 5 \nbelow, approval of that type of mechanical coupling device shall \nbe granted. An approval number shall be assigned to each type of mechanical \ncoupling device approved. The same Member state may not assign \nthe same number to another type of a mechanical coupling \ndevice. Notice of approval, or of extension or of refusal of approval of \na type of the mechanical coupling device pursuant to this \nDirective shall be communicated to the Member States by means of \na form conforming to the model in Annex IV to this Directive. There shall be affixed, conspicuously and in a readily \naccessible place specified on the approval form, to every \nmechanical coupling device conforming to a type of mechanical \ncoupling device approved under this Directive an international \napproval mark consisting of: \n\nfor Belgium \nfor Spain \n\n1 for Federal Republic of Germany \n2 for France \n3 for Italy \n4 for The Netherlands \n6 \n9 \n11 for United Kingdom \n13 for Luxemburg \n18 for Denmark \n21 for Portugal \nIRL for Ireland \nEL for Greece \n\n3. 3. 4. 1. A rectangle surrounding the letter \"e\" followed by the \ndistinguishing number of the country which has granted approval \n\n3. 3. 4. 2. The approval number, as given on the EEC type-approval \ncertificate (see Annex IV), near to the rectangle of the \napproval mark. 3. 3. 4. 3. The following supplementary marks placed anywhere close to the \nrectangle: \n\n- class of coupling device \n- permissible values for D, s, v and U \n\n(unnecessary for standard coupling devices) \n\n3. 3. 5. 3. 3. 6. 3. 4. The approval mark shall be indelible and clearly legible even \nwhen the coupling device is attached to the vehicle. Annex II to this Directive gives examples of the arrangement of \nthe approval mark. Modification of the type of mechanical coupling device and \nextension of EEC component type approval \n\n\f- 15 -\n\n3. 4. 1. Every modification of the type of mechanical coupling device \nshall be notified to the administrative department which \napproved the type of mechanical coupling device. The department may then either: \n\n3. 4. 1. 1. consider that the modifications made are unlikely to have an \nappreciable adverse effect and that in any case the mechanical \ncoupling device still complies with the requirements, or \n\n3. 4. 1. 2. Require a further report from the technical service responsible \nfor conducting the tests. 3. 4. 2. 3. 4. 3. 4. 4. 1 \n\n4. 1. 1. 4. 1. 2. 4. 1. 3. confirmation or refusal of approval, specifying the \nmodification, shall be communicated by the procedure specified \nin items 3. 3. above to the Member states. The competent authority issuing the extension of approval shall \nassign a serial number to each communication form drawn up for \nsuch a extension. EEC Vehicle Type Approval \n\nApplication for EEC type approval \n\nIn order for a vehicle to be granted type approval with a \ncoupling fitted, a representative type of vehicle with a \ncoupling device for which a component type approval has been \ngranted, must be submitted to the relevant Technical Service ,by \nthe manufacturer of the vehicle. In order for a vehicle to be granted type approval without a \ncoupling fitted, the manufacturer or his representative agent \nmust supply only the data mentioned in Annex VII, section 1. 1. The relevant Technical Service will examine according to Annex \nVII, the suitability of the type of coupling device for which \ntype approval has been granted for the type of vehicle for which \nvehicle approval has been applied for. The Technical Service will \nparticularly ensure that the attachment of the coupling device \ncorresponds to that which is prescribed for EEC component type \napproval. 4. 1. 4. The competent authority shall verify the existence of \nsatisfactory arrangements for ensuring effective control of the \nconformity of production of the vehicle before type approval is \ngranted. 4. 2 \n\nGranting of vehicle type approval \n\n4. 2. 1. If the type of vehicle meets the requirements of item 5 below, \napproval for that type of vehicle shall be granted. 4. 2. 2. 4. 2. 3. 4. 3. 4. 3. 1. - 16 -\n\nAn approval number shall be assigned to each type of vehicle \napproved. The same Member State may not assign the same number \nto another type of vehicle. Notice of approval, or of extension or refused of approval of a \ntype of vehicle pursuant to this Directive shall be communicated \nto the Member states by means of a form conforming to the model \nin Annex IX to this directive. Modification of the type of vehicle and extension of EEC vehicle \ntype approval \n\nEvery modification of the type of vehicle shall be notified to \nthe administrative department which appproved the type of \nvehicle. The department may then either: \n\n4. 3. 1. 1. Consider that the modifications are unlikely to have an \nappreciable adverse effect and that in any case the vehicle type \nstill complies with the requirements, or \n\n4. 3. 1. 2. Require a further report from the technical service responsible \nfor conduction the tests. 4. 3. 2. The holder of an EEC vehicle type approval can apply for it to \nbe extended to other types or classes of coupling devices. The competent authorities will grant such an extension on the \nfollowing conditions: \n\n4. 3. 2. 1. EEC component type approval has already been granted for the \nother type of coupling device \n\n4. 3. 2. 2. it is suitable for the type of vehicle for which the extension \nof the EEC vehicle type approval has been applied for \n\n4. 3. 2. 3. the attachment of the coupling device to the vehicle corresponds \nto that proposed for the granting of EEC component type \napproval. 4. 3. 3. 4. 3. 4. 4. 3. 5. In the case of standard coupling devices in classes A,C, D and \nG, EEC vehicle type approval is also valid for other coupling \ndevices of the same class without the need for a further \nmounting check and extension of EEC vehicle type approval. Confirmation or refusal of approval, specifying the \nmodification, shall be communicated by the procedure specified \nin items 4. 2. 3. The competent authority issuing the extension of approval shall \nassign a serial number to each communication form drawn up for \nsuch an extension. 5. 5. 1. 5. 2. 5. 3. 5. 4. 5. 5. 5. 6. 5. 7 \n\n5. 8 \n\n5. 9 \n\nRequirements \n\n- 17 -\n\nThe mechanical coupling devices between motor vehicles and \ntrailers must be manufactured and attached in accordance with \ngood engineering practice, and must be safe to operate. safe coupling and uncoupling of the vehicles must be possible by \na single person without the use of tools. only automatic coupling devices which allow an automatic \ncoupling procedure shall be employed for the coupling of \ntrailers having a maximum mass of more than 3,5 t. The mechanical coupling devices shall be so designed and \nmanufactured that in normal use, with proper maintenance and the \ntimely replacement of wearing parts, they will continue to \nfunction satisfactorily. Every coupling device must be accompanied by installation and \noperating instructions giving sufficient information for a \ncompetent person to install it on the vehicle and operate it \npropertly. The instructions must be in the language or \nlanguages of the Member State in which the coupling device will \nbe offered for sale. In the case of coupling devices supplied \nfor assembly-line use by vehicle builders or bodybuilders, the \nprovision of installation and operating instructions for each \ncoupling device can be dispensed with. It is then the \nresponsibility of the vehicle builder or bodybuilder to ensure \nthat the vehicle operator is provided with the information \nnecessary for operating the coupling device. The materials that may be used are those for which the \nproperties relevant to the application are laid down in a \nstandard or those for which the properties are given in the \ndocumentation according to 3. 1. 2. 3. of this Annex. All parts of the mechanical coupling devices whose failure could \nresult in separation of the two vehicles must be made of steel \nor forged or cast steel. other materials may be used provided equivalence has been \ndemonstrated by the manufacturer to the satisfaction of the \nTechnical Service. All couplings must be designed for positive mechanical \nengagement, and the closed position must be secured at least \nonce by positive mechanical engagement, unless further \nrequirements are stated in Annex V. The mechanical coupling devices must satisfy the requirements of \nAnnex V. Loading requirements \n\n5. 9. 1. Mechanical coupling devices are subject to the tests described \nin Annex VI. 5. 9. 2. 5. 10 \n\n5. 11. 6. 6. 1. 6. 2. - 18 -\n\nThese tests must not cause any cracks, fractures or other \nvisible external damage, or any excessive permanent distortion \nwhich would be detrimental to the satisfactory operation of the \ndevice. The installation of the mechanical coupling devices to the \nvehicle must be checked according to the requirements given in \nAnnex VII. The above-mentioned requirements and those of Annexes V, VI and \nVII are also applicable, as relevant, to miscellaneous coupling \ndevices (Class S ). Conformity of production \n\nEvery mechanical coupling device or vehicle approved to this \nDirective shall be so manufactured as to conform to the type \napproved by meeting the requirements of this directive. in order to verify that the requirements of paragraph 6. 1. are \nmet, suitable controls of the production shall be carried out. 6. 3. The holder of the approval shall in particular: \n\n6. 3. 1. 6. 3. 2. 6. 3. 3. 6. 3. 4. 6. 3. 5. 6. 3. 6. 6. 3. 7. ensure existence of procedures for the effective control of the \nquality of products, \n\nhave access to the control equipment necessary for checking the \nconformity of each approved type, \n\nensure that data of test results are recorded and that annexed \ndocuments shall remain available for a period to be determined \nin accordance with the administrative service, \n\nanalyse the results of each type of test, in order to verify and \nensure the stability of the product characteristics making \nallowance for tolerances of an industrial production, \n\nensure that in the case of a component for each type of product \nat least the tests prescribed in Annex VI to this Directive are \ncarried out, \n\nensure that in the case of a component all safety-relevant parts \nof every single mechanical coupling device are checked by non \ndestructive methods in order to ascertain the absence of \nstructural anomalies, if the manufacturing process contains \noperations like casting or heat-treating or other operations \nwhere anomalies cannot be excluded. ensure that any sampling of samples or test pieces giving \nevidence of non-conformity with the type of test considered \nshall give rise to another sampling and another test. All the \nnecessary steps shall be taken to re-establish the conformity of \nthe corresponding production. 6. 4. 6. 4. 1. 6. 4. 2. 6. 4. 3* \n\n6. 4. 4. 6. 4. 5. - 19 -\n\nThe competent authority which has granted type-approval may at \nany time verify the conformity control methods applicable to \neach production unit. In every inspection the test books and production survey records \nshall be presented to the visiting inspector. The inspector may take samples at random which will be tested in \nthe manufacturer's laboratory* The minimum number of samples may \nbe determined according to the results of the manufacturer's own \nverification. When the quality level appears unsatisfactory or when it seems \nnecessary to verify the validity of the tests carried out in \napplication of paragraph 6. 4. 2. the inspector shall select \nsamples to be sent to the Technical Service which has conducted \nthe type approval tests. The competent authority may carry out any test prescribed in \nthis Directive. The normal frequency of inspections authorized by the competent \nauthority shall be one per year. In the case where negative \nresults are recorded during one of these visits, the competent \nauthority shall ensure that all necessary steps are taken to re \nestablish the conformity of production as rapidly as possible. >\"m \n\n\fa) \n\nExample EEC approval mark for a drawbar coupling \n\n- 20 -\n\nANNEX I I \n\nn m i, \nf \n\n* miwr \n\nirrr T 3 \n\na > 8 mm \n\nThe coupling device with the EEC approval mark illustrated above \nis a non-standard drawbar coupling of Class C50-X with a maximum \npermitted 0 value of 130 kN, a maximum permitted static vertical \nbearing load of 1000 kg and a maximum permitted V-value of 35 \nkN, for which EEC component type approval was granted in the \nFederal Republic of Germany (el) under the number 92-1234. If any characteristic values, such as S and V, are not relevant, \nthe positions must be marked with a dash. Characteristic values D;S and V are not required for standard \ncoup Iings. b) \n\nExample EEC approval mark for a drawbar eye \n\n3 \n\nf \n\n3 rE \n\n,97-4/1 1 \n\ni \nn nil \u2014r 5 \nr \nn T \nF 3 \n\n\u00bb ^\" \n\na \n\na > 8 mm \n\nThe coupling device with the EEC approval mark illustrated above \nis a non-standard drawbar eye 50 of Class D50-X for welding \nattachment having a D value of 130 kN, a maximum permitted \nstatic vertical bearing load of 1000 kg and a maximum permitted \nV-value of 50 kN, for which EEC component type approval was \ngranted in the Federal Republic of Germany (el) under the number \n92-4711. If any characteristic values, such as S and V with hinged \ndrawbar, are not relevant, the positions must be marked with a \ndash. Characteristic values D, S and V are not required for \nstandard coupling devices. c) \n\nSpecimen EEC approval mark for a fifth wheel coupling \n\n- 21 -\n\nH33HS: \n\nm \n\niHtr \n\n1 \n\nTT77T \n\nzzzrzn \n\n1 \n\n> 8 mm \n\nThe coupling device with the EEC approval mark illustrated above \nis a non-standard fifth wheel coupling of Class G50-X having a \nmaximum permitted D value of 180 kN and a maximum permitted \nfifth wheel load of 26 t, for which EEC component type approval \nwas granted in the Federal Republic of Germany (el) under the \nnumber 92-1241. Characteristic values D and U are not relevant at all for \nstandard fifth wheels. d) \n\nSpecimen EEC approval mark for a fifth wheel coupling pin \n\nH Vli-X \n\nD Ifi? \n\nJL \n\ne 1 \n\nI?. 3 \n\n1 \n\nQ9-ma \n\na > 8 mm \n\nThe coupling device with the EEC approval mark illustrated above \nis a non-standard fifth wheel coupling pin of Class H50-X having \na D value of 162 kN for which EEC component type approval was \ngranted in the Federal Republic of Germany (el) under the number \n92-1242. e) \n\nSpec'men EEC approval mark for a coupling ball and towing \nbrackets \n\n- 22 -\n\nA v o -\\ \n\nL \n\n, \n\ne 1 \n\n2a \n3 \n\nTTTTT \n\nTTTT \n\nJL \n\n9 7 - \u2022 ^H J \n\na > 8 mm \n\nThe coupling device with the EEC approval mark illustrated above \nis a non-standard coupling ball and towing brackets of Class A \n50-X having a maximum permitted D value of 18 kN and a maximum \npermitted static vertical bearing load of 75 kg, for which EEC \ncomponent type approval was granted in the Federal Republic of \nGermany (el) under the number 92-1243. f) \n\nSpecimen EEC approval mark for a coupling head \n\nft 1f- -x \n\ni \n\n2a \n3 \n\ne i \n\nTTTF \n\n\u2022^T-TT \n\n3 \n3 \n\na_ \n3 \n\n97-\u00bb2U \n\na > 8 mm \n\nThe coupling device with the EEC approval mark illustrated above \nis a non-standard coupling head of Class B50-X having a D value \nof 18 kN and a maximum permitted static vertical bearing load of \n75 kg, for which EEC component type approval was granted in the \nFederal Republic of Germany (el) under the number 92-1244. g) \n\nSpecimen EEC approval mark for a drawbar \n\n- 23 -\n\n'D HIV , 3 \n\n\\\\. s mnn ~ \n\nM in. - \n\na \n\n\u00a7 \n\n3 \n\n3 \n\n^ _ ^ ^ ^-\n\n> 8 mm \n\nThe coupling device with the EEC approval mark illustrated above \nis a drawbar for a centre axle trailer of Class E with a maximum \npermitted D value of 109 kN, a maximum permitted static vertical \nbearing load of 1000 kg and a maximum permitted V-value of 50 \nkN, for which EEC component type approval was granted in the \nFederal Republic of Germany (el) under the number 92-1245. If any characteristic values, such as S and V with hinged \ndrawbar, are not relevant, the positions must be marked with a \ndash. - 24 -\n\nANNEX III \n\ninformation Document N* \n\nrelating to the EEC Coponent Type Approval of \nMechanical coupling Devices for Motor Vehicles and their \nTrailers (. /. /EEC) \n\nO. GENERAL \n\nO. l. 0. 2. O. 5. 0. 7. Make (trade name of manufacturer): \nType and commercial description^): \nName and address of manufacturer: \nLocation and method of affixing of the EEC approval mark: \n\n1 \n\nCONNECTIONS BETWEEN DRAWING VEHICLES AND TRAILERS AND SEMI-TRAILERS \n\n1. 1. *-. *\u2022 \n1. 3. 1. 4. i. 5. 1. 6. 1. 7. 1. 8. kN \n\nDetailed technical description (including drawings and material \nspecifications) of the type of the mechanical coupling device: \nclass and type of the coupling device(s): \nMaximum D-value ( *) : \nMaximum vertical load S at the coupling point(^): \nMaximum load U at the fifth wheel coupling < * ): \nMaximum V-value < * > \ninstructions of attachment of the coupling type to the vehiole and \nphotographs or drawing Of the fixing points at the vehicle given by \nthe manufacturer; additional information, if the use of the coupling \ntype is restricted to special types of vehicles: \ninformation of the fitting of special towing brackets or mounting \nplates(1): \n\nkg \nt \n\nkN \n\nDate, File \n\n(l\\ \n\nif applicable \n\n\f- 25 -\n\nANNEX IV \n\nM O D E L (a) \n\n(maximum format: A4 (210 x 297) \n\nEEC TYPE-APPROVAL CERTIFICATE \n\nCommunication concerne the : \n\ntype-approvalI *) \n\n- extension of type-approval (*) \n- refusal of type-approval<*) \n- withdrawal of type approval*1) \n\nof a type of a component(*) with regard to Directive \n(. /. /EEC), as last amended by Directive \n\nType-approval number^) : \n\nReason for extension: \n\nSECTION I \n\nr \n\nMake (trade name of manufacturer): \nType and commercial description(s): \n\nO. l. O. 2. O. 3. , Means of identification of type if marked on the component (1)(3) \nO. 3. I. Location of that marking: \n0. 5. 6. 7. Name and address of manufacturer: \nLocation and method of affixing of the EEC approval nark:. SECTION II \n\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 \u2022 \n9. (1) \n\n(2) \n\nAdditional information (where applicable): See Appendix I \nTechnical service responsible for carrying out the tests: \nDate of test report: \nNumber of test report: \nRemarks (if any) : see Appendix I \nPlace: \nDate: \nSignature: \nThe index to the information package lodged with the competent \nauthority that has granted type approval, which may be obtained on \nrequest, is attached. Delete where not applicable \n\nThe EEC type-approval number appearing on this document shall \n\nconsist of all sections outlined in Annex VII to Directive \n\n70/156/EEC, as last amended by Directive. /. /EEC. the \n\ncomponent itself shall be marked as prescribed in the relevant \n\nseparate Directive. (3) \n\nIf the means of identification of type contains characters not \n\nrelevant to describe the component types covered by this type-\n\napproval certificate such characters shall be represented in the \n\ndocumentation by the symbol : **?\" (e. g. ABC?? 123??) \n\n\f- 26 -\n\nAppendix I \n\nconcerning the component type approval of mechanical coupling \ndevices with regard to Directive. /. /EEC \n\nto EEC type-approval certificate no \n\n1. Additional information \n\n1. 1. Class of the type of coupling: \n\n1. 2. Categories or types of vehicles for which the device is designed or \nrestricted: \n\n1. 3. Maximum D-value(1):. kN \n\n1. 4. Maximum vertical load s at the coupling point (*): \n\nkg \n\n1. 5. Maximum load U at the fifth wheel coupling point <*) \n\nt \n\n1. 6. Maximum V-value (*):. kN \n\n1. 7. Use of special towing brackets or mounting plates: \nyes/no \n\n5. Remarks: \n\n(1) \n\nDelete where not applicable \n\n\f- 27 -\n\nANNEX V \n\nRequirements for mechanical coupling devices \n\n1. Coupling balls and towing brackets \n\nThe requirements stated in 1. 1. to 1. 4. are applicable to all \ncoupling balls and towing brackets of Class A. Section 1. 5. lists additional requirements which must be fulfilled by \nstandard coupling balls 50 and flange type towing brackets. 1. 1. 1. 2 \n\nCoupling balls of Class A must conform to Fig. 2 in shape and \ndimensions. The shape and the dimensions of the towing brackets have to meet the \nrequirements of the vehicle manufacturer concerning the attachment \npoints and additional mounting devices, if necessary. 1. 3. In the case of removable coupling balls the point of connection and \ntheir locking must be designed for positive mechanical engagement. 1. 4. Coupling balls and towing devices must be able to satisfy the tests \nlaid down in Annex VI, Section 4. 1. Fig 2 \n\n1) \n\n2) \n\nThe connecting radius between the ball and the neck should be \ntangential both to the neck and to the lower horizontal surface of \nthe coup Iing balI. See ISO/R 468 and ISO 1302; the roughness number N9 refers to an Ra \nvalue of 6,3 mm. - 28 -\n\n1. 5 \n\n1. 5. 1. 1. 5. 2. 1. 5. 3. Special requirements for standard coupling balls and flange type \ntowing brackets of class A50-1, A50-2 and A50-3. Dimensions of class A50-1 coupling balls and flange type towing \nbrackets must be as given in Fig. 3 and Table 1. Dimensions of class A50-2 and class A50-3 coupling balls and \nflange type towing brackets must be as given in Fig. 4 and \nTable 1. Coupling balls and flange type towing brackets of the classes \nA50-1, A50-2 and A50-3 must be suitable and tested for the \ncharacteristic values given in Table 2. d2 \n\n1 \n\n1 \n\nA \n\n'Jl. 1. f \n\n= \n\n( \n\nI, \n\ni \n1 \n\nr \n\nll \n\nII \n' \n\n1 \n\n^ \n\nFig. 3 \n\nDimensions of standard ball couplings and flange type towing \nbrackets of Class A50-1 (mm), see Table 1 \n\nON \n\nP\" m \nL: e-\n\n^ \n\n^ \n\nf 4 \n\n\\ \n\nFig. 4 \n\nDimensions of standard ball couplings and flange type towing \nbrackets of Classes A50-2 and A50-3 (mm), see Table ITable 1 \n\n\fDimensions of standard ball couplings and flange type towing \nbrackets (mm), see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 \n\n- 29 -\n\nA50-1 \n\nA50-2 \n\nA50-3 \n\nremark \n\nel \ne2 \nd2 \nf \ng \nc \n1 \nh \n\n90 \n-\n17 \n130 \n50 \n15 \n55 \n70 \n\n83 \n56 \n10,5 \n\n110 \n85 \n15 \n110 \n80 \n\n120 \n55 \n15 \n155 \n90 \n15 \n120 \n80 \n\n+/-0,5 \n+/-0,5 \nH13 \n+6,-0 \n+6,-0 \nmax \n+/-5 \n+ /-5 \n\nTable 2 \n\nCharacteristic values for standard ball couplings and flange \ntype towing brackets \n\nD = Max. D-value (kN) \nS = Max. static vertical load (kg) \n\nA50-1 \n\nA50-2 \n\nA50-3 \n\nD \nS \n\n10 \n75 \n\n20 \n100 \n\n30 \n120 \n\n2. 2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 2. 4. Coupling heads \n\nCoupling heads of Class B50 must be designed so that they can be \nused safely with the coupling balls described in Section 1 of \nthis Annex and thereby retain the prescribed characteristics. Coupling heads must be able to satisfy the tests laid down in \nAnnex VI, Section 4. 2. Any additional device (e. g. braking, stabilizer etc. ) shall not \nhave any adverse effect on the mechanical connection. Horizontal rotation of the coupling head at least 90* to either \nside of the centreline of the coupling ball and mounting \ndescribed in Section 1 of this Annex when not attached to the \nvehicle must be possible. Simultaneously there must be an angle of free vertical movement \n20* above and below the horizontal. Also, in conjunction with \nthe horizontal angle of rotation of 90* it must be possible for \nthere to be 25* of roll in both directions about the horizontal \naxis. The following combinations of motions must be possible: \n\nvertical pitch \naxial roll \n\n+ 15* with axial roll \n+ 25* \n+ 10* with vertical pitch + 20* \n\nat all angles of horizontal rotation. 3. Drawbar couplings \n\n- 30 -\n\n3. 1. 3. 2. 3. 3. 3. 4. The requirements of 3. 1 to 3. 8 are applicable to all drawbar \ncouplings of class C50. Item 3. 9 lists the additional requirements which must be \nfulfilled by standard drawbar couplings of classes C50-1 \nto C50-7. Load requirements \nAll drawbar couplins shall be able to satisfy the tests stated \nin Annex VI, item 4. 3. suitable drawbar eyes \nClass C50 drawbar couplings shall be compatible with all Class \nD50 drawbar eyes and coupling with the specified \ncharacteristics. Automatic operation \nDrawbar couplings must be automatic in operation \n(see Annex I, item 2. 1. 17). Jaw \nClass C50 drawbar couplings must have a jaw which is designed \nsuch that the appropriate drawbar eyes is guided into the \ncoupling. If the jaw, or a part supporting the jaw, can pivot about the \nvertical axis, it must establish itself automatically in the \nnormal position and, with the coupling pin open, be restrained \nin a positive mechanical engagement in this position. If the jaw, or a part supporting the jaw, can pivot about the \ntransverse axis, the joint providing the rotation capability \nmust be restrained in its normal position by a locking torque. This torque must be sufficient to prevent a force of 200 N \nacting vertically upwards on the top of the jaw producing any \ndeflection of the joint from its normal position. It must be \npossible to bring the jaw to its normal position manually. A \njaw that pivots about the transverse axis is only approved for \nvertical bearing loads S of up to 50 kg and a V-value of up to 5 \nkN. If the jaw, or a part supporting the jaw, is pivoted about the \nlongitudinal axis, the rotation must be restrained by a locking \ntorque of at least 100 Nm. The minimum required size of the jaw depends on the D value of \nthe coupling: \n\nD-value > 18 kN: width 150 mm, height 100 mm \n18 kN <D-value < 25 kN: width 280 mm, height 170 mm \n: width 36 0 mm, height 200 mm \n25 kN <D-value \n\nThe external corners of the jaw may be radiused. Smaller jaws are permitted for Class C50-X drawbar couplings if \ntheir use is restricted to centre axle trailers up to 3. 5 t \nmaximum permissible mass or if the use of a jaw from the above \ntable is impossible due to technical reasons and if, \nfurthermore, there are special circumstances such as visual aids \n\n\f- 31 -\n\nfor ensuring safe execution of the automatic coupling procedure \nand if the field of application is restricted in the approval \naccording to Annex III. 3. 5. Minimum freedom of movement of the coupled drawbar eye \n\nThe coupled drawbar eye must be able to rotate horizontally +_ \n90* about the vertical axis from the longitudinal axis of the \nvehicle (see Fig. 5 ). The coupled drawbar eye must be able to rotate vertically + 2 0* \nabout the transverse axis from the horizontal axis of the \nvehicle (see Fig. 6 ). If the motion is provided by a special \njoint (only on Class C50-X drawbar couplings) the field of \napplication given in the approval according to Annex III must be \nrestricted to the cases stated in Annex VII, Section 2. 3. 7. It must be possible for the coupled drawbar eye to be rotated \naxially + 2 5* about the longitudinal axis from the horizontal \nplane of the vehicle (see Fig. 7 ). The stated angles of rotation are applicable to drawbar \ncouplings not attached to the vehicle. 3. 6. Minimum angle for coupling-up and uncoupling \n\ncoupling and uncoupling of the drawbar eye must also be possible \nwhen the longitudinal axis of the drawbar eye in relation to the \ncentreline of the jaw: \n\n3. 6. 1. 3. 6. 2. 3. 6. 3. is rotated 50* horizontally to right or left \nis rotated 10* vertically up or down \nis rotated 10* axially to right or left. 3. 7. Locking to prevent inadvertent uncoupling \n\nIn the closed position the coupling pin must be secured by two \npositive mechanical securing devices each of which must remain \neffective should the other fail. The closed and secured position of the coupling must be clearly \nindicated externally by a mechanical device. It must be \npossible to verify the position of the indicator by feel, e. g. in the dark. The mechanical device must indicate the engagement of both \nlocking devices (an AND condition). However, it is sufficient for the engagement of only one locking \ndevice to be indicated if, in this situation, engagement of the \nsecond locking device is an inherent feature of the design. 3. 8 \n\nHand levers \n\nHand levers must be of a design suitable for easy use with the \nend rounded off. The coupling must have no sharp edges or points \nof possible pinching near the hand lever which could result in \ninjury during operation of the coupling. - 32 -\n\nThe force needed to release the coupling, measured without the \ndrawbar eye, must not exceed 250 N perpendicular to the hand \nlever along the line of operation. Special requirements for standard drawbar couplings of Class \nC50-1 to C50-7 \n\nthe swivel motion of the drawbar eye about the transverse axis \nmust be achieved through the spherical shape of the coupling pin \n(and not by means of a special joint, see Fig. 6 ). Tensile and compressive shock loads along the longitudinal axis \ndue to the clearance between the coupling pin and the drawbar \neye must be attenuated by spring and/or damping devices (except \nC50-1). The dimensions given in Fig. 8 and Table 3 must be adhered to. The couplings must be suitable and tested for the characteristic \nvalues given in Table 4. The couling must be opened by means of a hand lever at the \ncoupling (no remote control). 3. 9 \n\n3. 9. 1 \n\n3. 9. 2 \n\n3. 9. 3 \n\n3. 9. 4 \n\n3. 9. 5 \n\n\f- 33 -\n\nlongitudinal axis of \ntowing vehicle \n\nFig. 5 \n\nMinimum horizontal rotation of the coupled drawbar eye \u00b1 90' \nabout the vertical axis from the longitudinal axis of the \nvehicle \n\nspecial joint \n\n20\u00b0 nun \n\n/20\u00b0min. \\ 20\u00b0 nun \n\nHorizontal plane \n\nFig. 6 \n\nMinimum vertical rotation of the coupled drawbar eye \u00b120\u00b0 about \nthe transverse axis from the horizontal plane of the vehicle. - 34 -\n\nHorizontal plane \n\nF i g. 7 KX;r. r:;= ttsar :r;;. *s;,:r -\n\n\f- 35 -\n\nFig. 8 \n\nDimensions of the standard drawbar coupling (mm), see Table 3 \n\n\fTable 3 : \n\nDimensions of standard drawbar couplings (mm), see Fig. 8 \n\n- 36 -\n\nC50-\n\n\u20221 \n\nC50-2 \n\nC50-3 \n\nC50-4 \n\nC50-5 \n\nC50-6 \n\nC50-7 \n\nremark \n\nel \ne2 \ndl \nd2 \nf \ng \na \nb \nc \nh \n11 \n12 \n13 \nT \n\ni \n8: \n5\u00ab \n\n-\n\n54 \n\nlJ \nIK \n\n>,5 \n) \n8! \n\n100 \n150 \n\n150 \n-\n150 \n100 \n-\n\n1 \n2< \n\n170 \n280 \n\n190 \n150 \n300 \n160 \n15 \n\n120 \n55 \n74 \n15 \n155 \n90 \n200 \n360 \n24 \n265 \n250 \n330 \n180 \n20 \n\n140 \n80 \n84 \n17 \n180 \n120 \n200 \n360 \n30 \n265 \n300 \n330 \n180 \n25 \n\n160 \n100 \n94 \n21 \n200 \n140 \n200 \n360 \n30 \n265 \n300 \n330 \n180 \n\n25 \n\n30 \n\n200 \n120 \n124 \n25 \n250 \n170 \n200 \n360 \n40 \n265 \n300 \n330 \n180 \n30 \n\n+/-0,5 \n+/-0,5 \nmax. H13 \n+6,-0 \n+/-3 \n+20,-0 \n+20,-0 \nmax. max. max. max. +/-20 \nmax. Table 4 : \n\ncharacteristic values for standard drawbar couplings \nD = Max. D value (KN) \nS - Max. static vertical bearing load (kg) \nV = Max. V-value (KN) \n\nC50-1 \n\nC50-2 \n\nC50-3 \n\nC50-4 \n\nC50-5 \n\nC50-6 \n\nC50-7 \n\nD \nS \nV \n\n18 \n200 \n12 \n\n25 \n250 \n10 \n\n70 \n650 \n18 \n\n100 \n900 \n25 \n\n130 \n1000 \n35 \n\n190 \n1000 \n50 \n\n250 \n1000 \n85 \n\n4. Drawbar eyes \n\nThe requirements stated in 4. 1 are applicable to drawbar eyes of \nClass D50. Sections 4. 2 to 4. 5 list the additional requirements which must \nbe fulfilled by standard drawbar eyes. 4. 1 \n\nGeneral requirements for drawbar eyes \n\nAll drawbar eyes shall be able to satisfy the test stated in \nAnnex VI item 4. 4. Class D50 drawbar eyes are intended for use with C50 drawbar \ncouplings. Drawbar eyes must not be able to rotate axially (because the \nrespective couplings can rotate). - 37 -\n\nIf Class D50 drawbar eyes are fitted with sleeves, they shall \ncomply with the dimensions shown in Fig. 13 (except class D50-C) \nor Fig. 14. The sleeves must not be welded into the drawbar eyes. Class D50 drawbar eyes must have the dimensions illustrated in \nFig. 9 (if not stated otherwise in 4. 2, 4. 3 or 4. 4) \nThe form of shank for drawbar eyes of class D50-X is not \nspecified, but in a distance of 210 mm from the centre of the \neye the height \"h\" and the width \"b\" must be within the limits \ngiven by Table 6. Special requirements for drawbar eyes of Class D50-A \n\nDrawbar eyes of class D50-A must have the dimensions illustrated \nin Fig. 9. special requirements for drawbar eyes of class D50-B \n\nClass D50-B drawbar eyes must have the dimensions illustrated in \nFig. 10. 4. 2 \n\n4. 3 \n\n4. 4 \n\nSpecial requirements for drawbar eyes of class D50-C \n\nClass D50-C1 drawbar eyes must have the dimensions illustrated \nin Fig. 11. class D50-C2 drawbar eyes must have the dimensions illustrated \nin Fig. 12. Class D50-C drawbar eyes must be fitted with the sleeves \nillustrated in Fig. 14. 4. 5 \n\nLoad values for standard drawbar eyes \n\nThe standard drawbar eyes and their means of attachement must be \nsuitable and tested for the load values stated in Table 5. Table 5 : Characteristic values for standard drawbar eyes \n\nD - Max. D value (KN) \nS = Max. static vertical bearing load (kg) \nV - V-value (KN) \n\nClass \n\nD50-A \nD50-B \nD50-C1 \nD50-C2 \n\nD \n\n130 \n130 \n190 \n250 \n\nS \n\n1000 \n1000 \n1000 \n1000 \n\nTable 5 \n\nV \n\n30 \n25 \n50 \n85 \n\n\fTable 6 \n\nDimensions for drawbar eyes D50-A and D50-X, see Fig. 9 \n\n- 38 -\n\nClass \n\nD50-A \n\nD50-X \n\nh (mm) \n\nb (mm) \n\n6 5+2 \n-1 \n67 max \n\n60+2 \n-1 \n62 max \n\n8<T5 \n\n210! \n\nA-A \nshown w i t h o ut s l e e ve \n\n^ s p h e re $+15. ? \n\n325 \u00abk \n\nFig. 9 \n\nDimensions of Classes D50-A and D50-X drawbar eyes (see Table 6) \n\n\f- 39 \n\n6x1,5 \n\n1*1 \n\n\u2022^1:10 \n\nv_ \n\n\u2022I \n\nDrawl lar eye \n\nDrawbar eye socket \n\nFig. 10 \n\nDimensions of Class D50-B drawbar eyes (see Fig. 9 for missing \ndimensions) \n\n\f- 40 -\n\nt\u00eb^^^^^Jj!*J\u00c9;!S\u00cb^\u00c7>a^ \n\nb S\u00b0 ^1 'c^w b^5SW. <9*\u00eb\"\u2022 Fig, 9 for missing \n\n\f- 41 -\n\nFig. 12 \n\nDimensions of Class D50-C2 drawbar eyes (see Fig. 9 for missing \ndimensions) \n\n\f- 42 -\n\nFig. 13 \n\nSlotted sleeve for D50 drawbar eyes \n\n\u2022\u2022S \n\ni \u00bb \n\nFig. 14 \n\nNot slotted sleeve for D50-C drawbar eyes \n\n\f5. 5. 1 \n\n5. 2 \n\n5. 3 \n\n5. 4 \n\n5. 4. 1 \n\n5. 4. 2 \n\n5. 4. 3 \n\n5. 4. 4 \n\n5. 5 \n\n5. 6 \n\n6. 6. 1 \n\n6. 2 \n\n6. 3 \n\nDrawbars \n\n- 43 -\n\nDrawbars of class E must be able to satisfy the tests described \nin annex VI, section 4. 5. In order to provide a connection to the towing vehicle, the \ndrawbars can be fitted either with coupling heads as in Section \n2 or drawbar eyes as in Section 4 of this Annex. The coupling \nheads and drawbar eyes can be attached by screwing, bolting or \nwelding. Hinged drawbars must be clear of the ground. They shall not fall below a height of 200 mm from the ground \nwhen released from the horizontal position. Height adjusting devices for hinged drawbars \n\nHinged drawbars have to be equipped with devices for adjusting \nthe drawbar to -the height of the coupling device of jaw. These \ndevices roust be designed so that the drawbar can be adjusted by \none person without tools or any other aids. Height adjusting devices must be able to adjust the drawbar eyes \n\ni or ball couplings from the horizontal above the ground at least \n300 mm upwards and downwards. Within this range the drawbar must \nbe adjustable steplessly or in maximum steps of 50 mm measured \nat the drawbar eye or ball coupling. The height adjusting device must not interfere with easy \nmovement of the drawbar after coupling-up. The height adjusting devices must not interfere with the action \nof any overrun brake. In the case of drawbars combined with overrun brakes the \ndistance between the centre of the drawbar eye and the end of \nthe free shank of the drawbar eye must not be less than 200 mm \nin the brake application position. With the shank of the drawbar \neye fully inserted the distance must not be less than 150 mm. Drawbars for use on centre axle trailers must possess at least \nhalf the moment of resistance against lateral forces as against \nvertical forces. Mounting frames \n\nMounting frames shall be appropriate for the attachment of the \nconcerned coupling device to the corresponding vehicle(s). Mounting frames must not be welded to the chassis, bodywork or \nother part of the vehicle. Mounting frames must be able to satisfy the tests laid down in \nAnnex VI, section 4. 3. 7. Fifth wheel couplins and steering wedges \n\n- 44 -\n\nThe requirements of 7. 1 to 7. 9 are applicable to all fifth wheel \ncouplings of class G50. Section 7. 10 lists the additional requirements which must be \nfulfilled by standard coupling devices. Steering wedges must satisfy the requirements listed in 7. 9. 7. 1 \n\nSuitable fifth wheel coupling pins \n\nClass G50 fifth wheel couplings must be designed so that they \ncan be used with class H50 coupling pins and provide the \nspecified characteristics with them. 7. 2 \n\nAutomatic operation \n\nFifth wheel couplings must be automatic in operation. 7. 3 \n\nGuides \n\nFifth wheel couplins must be equipped with a guide which ensures \nsafe and secure engagement of the coupling pin. The entry width \nof the guide must be at least 350 mm. 7. 4 \n\nMinimum free movement of the fifth wheel coupling with the \ncoupling pin engaged (but with the fifth wheel coupling not \nattached to a mounting plate or vehicle) \n\n7. 4. 1 \n\n7. 4. 2 \n\n7. 4. 3 \n\nWith the coupling pin engaged, fifth wheel couplings must permit \nthe following minimum values of rotation of the coupling pin in \nthe travelling position: \n\n\u00b190* about the vertical axis (not applicable to fifth wheel \ncouplings with positive sterring) and, simultaneously, \n\n\u00b1 1 2* about the horizontal axis transverse to the direction of \ntravel. This angle does not necessarily cover off road use. Rotation about the longitudinal axis of up to \u00b1 3* is permitted. However, on a fully oscillating fifth wheel coupling, this angle \nmay be exceeded, providing that a locking mechanism enables the \nrestriction of the rotation up to \u00b1 3*. 7. 5 \n\nLocking devices to prevent uncoupling of fifth wheel couplings \n\nThe locking mechanism of the coupling must secure the coupling \npin two positive ways; the second locking device may operate on \nthe first. The first locking device must operate automatically \nat coupling-up. If the second locking device has to be operated \nby hand it should only be possible to engage it after the first \ndevice has been fully engaged. If the second locking device \noperates automatically, the engagement of both must be indicated \nvisually. 7. 6 \n\nOperating devices \n\n- 45 -\n\nIn the closed position the operating devices must be secured to \nprevent inadvertent operation. 7. 7 \n\nSurface finish \n\nThe surfaces of the coupling plate and coupling lock must be \nfunctionally satisfactory and carefully machined, forged, cast \nor pressed. 7. 8 \n\nLoad requirements \n\nAll fifth wheel couplings must be able to satisfy the tests \ndescribed in Annex VI, Section 4. 6. 7. 9 \n\nSteering wedges \n\n7. 9. 1 \n\n7. 9. 2 \n\nCouplings of class G50-X which are unsuitable for positive \nsteering must be marked appropriately. The dimensions of steering wedges for the positive steering of \nsemi-trailers must be as in Fig. 16. The steering wedge must allow safe and secure coupling-up. The \nsteering wedge must be spring-mounted. The strength of the spring must be selected so that it is \npossible to couple up an unloaded semi-trailer and so that, with \nthe semi-trailer fully loaded, the steering wedge is firmly in \ncontact with the flanks of the coupling during travel. Uncoupling of the fifth wheel must be possible with the semi \ntrailer both loaded and unloaded. 7. 10 \n\nSpecial requirements for standard fifth wheels couplings \n\n7. 10. 1 \n\n7. 10. 2 \n\n7. 10. 3 \n\n7. 10. 4 \n\nStandard fifth wheel couplings of Classes G50-1, G50-2, G50-3 \nand G50-4 must have the dimensions indicated in Fig. 15 and \nTable 7. Standard fifth wheel couplings must be suitable for and tested \nfor a D-value of 150 KN and a value of U of 20 t. Release must be possible by a hand lever directly at the \ncoupling. Standard fifth wheel couplings must be suitable for the positive \nsteering of semi-trailers by means of steering wedges (see \nsection 7. 9. ). - 46 -\n\ni ^ \n\n<F \n\nt06 \n\nTT \n\nsect ion A-B \n\n(shown oversize, turned through 90' \nand with the coupling pin) \n\n1*^5\u00b0 \n\nProvide space for steering wedge \n\nBearing surface \nfor s t e e r i ng wed-\n\nFig. 15 \n\nDimensions of standard fifth wheel couplings (see Table 7) \n\n\fTable 7 \n\nDimensions of standard fifth wheel couplings (mm) (see Fig. 15) \n\n- 47 -\n\nG50-1 \n\nG50-2 \n\nG50-3 \n\nG50-4 \n\n150 \u00b1 10 \n\n175 \u00b1 10 \n\n200 \u00b1 10 \n\n250 \u00b1 10 \n\n+ 2 \n\n52 \n\n- 1 \n\nminimum \u00b112\u00b0 \n\nH \n\nh \n\na \n\n1) \n2) \n\nOnly applicable to steering wedges over 60 mm thick \nThis dimension only refers to the functional surface; the \nsteering wedge itself can be longer \n\nFig. 16 \n\nDimensions of spring-mounted steering wedges \n\n\f8. 8. 1 \n\n8. 2 \n\nFifth wheel coupling pins \n\n- 48 -\n\nFifth wheel coupling pins of Class H50 (ISO 337) must have the \ndimensions shown in Fig. 17. The coupling pins must be able to satisfy the tests described in \nAnnex VI, Section 4. 8. * < * \n\ni \n\n\u2022\u2014 \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n*. \u2022* \n\ni ? 3 :W \n\no 50. Bio. i \n\n\"7 \n\nJ. pace f or \u00abar\u00bbi i\u00bb\u00bbg \n\ne71. 5tot \n\n\\ or \n\nV \nA. 0 \n\nV. Fig. 17 \n\nDimensions of Class H50 fifth wheel coupling pins \n\n\"A- actional c^\u00bb3\">^er 2*$X-*5\u00b0 \n\n9. 9. 1 \n\n9. 2 \n\n9. 3 \n\n10. 10. 1 \n\nMounting plates \n\nClass J mounting plates for fifth wheel couplings must have a \nhole configuration corresponding to Classes G50-1,G50-2, G50-3 \nand G50-4 if they are intended for standard fifth wheel \ncoup Ii ngs. Mounting plates for standard fifth wheel couplings must be \nsuitable for the positive steering of semi-trailers (with \nsteering wedges). Mounting plates for non-standard fifth wheel \ncouplings which are unsuitable for positive steering must be \nmarked appropriately. Mounting plates for fifth wheel couplings must be able to \nsatisfy the tests described in Annex VI, Section 4. 7. Devices for remote indication and remote control \n\nGeneral requirements \n\nDevices for remote indication and remote control are permitted \non automatic coupling devices of Classes C50-X and G50-X. Devices for remote indication and remote control must not \ninterfere with the minimum free movement of the coupled drawbar \neye or coupled semi-trailer. They must be permanently connected \nto the vehicle. - 49 -\n\nAll the devices for remote indication or remote control fall \nwithin the scope of. testing and approval of the coupling device \ntogether with all parts of the operating devices and \ntransmission devices. 10. 2 \n\nRemote indication \n\n10. 2. 1 \n\n10. 2. 2 \n\n10. 2. 3 \n\n10. 2. 4 \n\n10. 2. 5 \n\n10. 2. 6 \n\n10. 2. 7 \n\n10. 2. 8 \n\n10. 2. 9 \n\nFor an automatic coupling procedure, remote indication devices \nmust indicate the closed and doubly locked position of the \ncoupling in an optical manner according to section 10. 2. 2 and/or \n10. 2. 3. The change from the open to the closed and doubly locked \nposition shall be indicated by a green optical signal. If the open and/or unsecured position is indicated, a red \noptical signal shall be used. In the case of -indicating the termination of the automatic \ncoupling procedure, the remote indication has to ensure that the \ncoupled devices are really connected together (e. g. that pin has \nactually engaged in the drawbar eye). The appearance of any fault in the remote indication system \nshall not indicate a closed and locked position during the \ncoupling procedure if the endposition has not been reached. The disengagement of one of the two locking devices must cause \nthe green optical signal to extinguish and/or the red optical \nsignal to show. The mecanical indicators directly at the coupling device must be \nretained. The remote indication device shall be automatically activated \nduring every coupling procedure. In order to avoid distracting the driver during normal driving, \nthere shall be a provision for switching off the remote \nindication device. The operating controls and indicators of the remote indication \ndevices must be mounted within the driver's field of vision and \nbe permanently and clearly identified. 10. 3 \n\nRemote control \n\n10. 3. 1 \n\n10. 3. 2 \n\nIf a remote control device is employed, there must also be a \nremote indication device as described in 10. 2 which must also \nindicate the open condition of the coupling. There must be a dedicated switch (i. e. master switch, lever or \nvalve) for enabling or barring opening of the coupling by means \nof the remote control device. If this master switch is not \nlocated in the driving cab it must not be in a position where it \nis freely accessible to unauthorized persons or it must be \nlockable. The actual operation of the coupling from the driving \ncab may only be possible when inadvertent operation has been \nprecluded. 10. 3. 3 \n\n10. 3. 4 \n\n10. 3. 5 \n\n10. 3. 6 \n\n- 50 -\n\nIt must be possible to ascertain whether opening of the coupling \nunder remote control has been enabled or not. If remote control involves the coupling being opened by external \nforce, the condition under which the external force acts on the \ncoupling must be indicated appropriately to the driver. This is \nnot necessary if the external force is only operative while the \nremote control is operating. If the actuating device for opening the coupling under remote \ncontrol is mounted externally on the vehicle it must be possible \nto oversee the area between the coupled vehicles, but it must \nnot be necessary, however, to enter this area in order to \noperate it. Any single error in operation or the occurrence of any single \nfault in the system must not result in accidental opening of the \ncoupling during normal road travel. Any faults in the system \nmust be indicated directly or be immediately obvious at the next \noperation, e. g. by a malfunction. In the event of a failure of remote control it must be possible \nto open the coupling in at least one other way in an emergency \ncase. If this requires the use of a tool it must be included in \nthe vehicle's tool kit. The requirements of Annex V, Section 3. 8 \nare not applicable to hand levers used exclusively for opening \nthe coupling in an emergency. 10. 3. 7 \n\nThe operating controls and indicators for the remote control \ndevices must be permanently and clearly identified. 1. 1. 1 \n\n1. 2 \n\n1. 3 \n\n1. 4 \n\n1. 5 \n\n1. 6 \n\n- 51 -\n\nANNEX VI \n\nTesting of mechanical coupling devices \n\nGeneral testing requirements \n\nSpecimens of coupling devices must be tested; both, strength \ntests and function tests being performed. However the Technical Service may waive a strength test if the \nsimple design of a component makes a theoretical check possible. With coupling devices the strenght must be verified by a dynamic \ntest (endurance test). In certain cases some additional static \ntests may be necessary (see section 4 ). In the case of simple \nClass E components, which past experience has shown to require \nno endurance test for safe verification, a static test or \ntheoretical calculation will be sufficient. In cases of doubt it \nis the results -of dynamic testing that are overriding. The \nTechnical Service responsible will decide on the type of tests \nto be employed. Check calculations must ensure quality of the results with those \nof dynamic or static testing. The dynamic test should be performed with approximately \nsinusoidal load (alternating and/or pulsating) with a number of \nstress cycles appropriate to the material. No cracks of \nfractures must occur. Only slight permanent deformation is permitted with the static \ntests prescribed. The plastic deformation after releasing must \nnot be more than 10 % of the maximum deformation. The loading assumptions in the dynamic tests are based on the \nhorizontal force component in the longitudinal axis of the \nvehicle and the vertical force component. Horizontal force components transverse to the longitudinal axis \nof the vehicle, and moments, are not taken into account provided \nthey are of only minor significance. If the design of the coupling device or its attachment to the \nvehicle or the attachment of additional systems (as stabilizers, \nshort coupling systems etc. ) generates additional forces or \nmoments additional tests may be required by the Technical \nService. The horizontal force component in the longitudinal axis of the \nvehicle is represented by a theoretically determined reference \nforce, the D value as defined in Annex 1, Section 2. 1. 18. The \nvertical force component, where applicable, is represented by \nthe static vertical bearing load s at the point of coupling and \nthe assumed vertical load V, defined in Annex I, Section 2. 1. 19 \nor by the static vertical bearing load U in case of fifth wheel \ncouplings. 1. 7 \n\n2. 2. 1 \n\n2. 2 \n\n2. 3 \n\n2. 4 \n\n2. 5 \n\n2. 6 \n\n- 52 -\n\nThe characteristic values D, S, V and U on which the tests are \nbased, must be taken from the manufacturer's application for the \ngranting of EEC type approval. Test procedures \n\nFor the dynamic tests and static tests the specimen must be \nplaced in a suitable rig with a suitable means of force \napplication so that it is not subjected to any additional forces \nor moments apart from the specified test force. In the case of \nalternating tests the direction of force application must not \ndeviate by more than \u00b11* from the specified direction. In the \ncase of pulsating and static tests the angle must be set for top \nforce. This will normally require a joint at the point of force \napplication (i. e. the point of coupling) and a second joint an \nadequate distance away. The test frequency must not exceed 35 Hz. The selected frequency \nshall be well seperated from resonance frequencies of the test \nset-up inducing the tested device. With asynchronous testing \nthe frequencies of the two force components must be \napproximately 1% to a maximum of 3% apart. For coupling devices \nmade of steel the number of stress cycles is 2 x 106. for \ndevices made of other materials than steel a higher number of \ncycles may be necessary. The dye-penetration method of crack \ntesting or an equivalent method must be employed. With alternating test forces (components) the mean force is \nzero. With pulsating tests the test force is equal to the top \nforce; the bottom force may be up to 5% of the top force unless \nstated otherwise in the specific testing requirements. With static tests the test force must be applied smoothly and \nquickly and be maintained for at least 60 seconds. The coupling devices on test shoud normally be mounted as \nrigidly as possible on a test rig in the actual position in \nwhich they will be used on the vehicle. The fixing devices \nshould be those specified by the manufacturer or applicant and \nshould be those intented for its attachment to the vehicle \nand/or shall have identical mechanical characteristics. Preferably, couplings have to be tested in original condition as \nbeing foreseen for the use on the road. At the discretion of the \nmanufacturer and in agreement with the Teichnical Service \nflexible components may be neutralized if this is necessary for \nthe test procedure and if there is no concern about unrealistic \ninfluence to the test result. Flexible components being apparently overheated due to this \naccelerated test procedure are may be replaced during the test. The test loads may be applied by means of special slack-free \ndevices. 3. Symbols and definitions in Annex VI \n\n- 53 -\n\nAv = max. permitted axle load of the steered axle in t \nC \n\n= mass of centre axle trailer in t (as Annex I, Section \n\n2. 1. 18) \n\n= D value in kN (Annex I, Section 2. 1. 18) \n= mass of full trailer in t (Annex I, section 2. 1. 18) \n= mass of towing vehicle in t (Annex I, Section 2. 1. 18) \n\nD \nR \nT \nFA = static lifting force in kN \nFn = horizontal component of test force in longitudinal \n\naxis of vehicle in kN \n\nF3 = vertical component of test force in kN \nF_ \n\nhorizontal component of test force transverse to \nlongitudinal axis of vehicle in kN \n\nFns r es \n\n= \n\nFhq res \n\nresultant test \nforce of Fn and \nFS in kN \nresultant \nof \nforce \nkN \nPq in \n\ntest \nFh an \n\nS \nU \nV \na \n\n= static vertical load in kg \n= fifth wheel imposed vertical load in t \n= V-Value in kN (Annex I, Section 2. 1. 19) \n= equivalent vertical acceleration factor in the \n\ncoupling point of centre axle trailers depending on \nthe kind of suspension on the rear axle(s) of the \ntowing vehicle \n\ne \n\n= longitudinal distance between the coupling point of \n\ncoupling balls which can be dismantled and the \nvertical plane of the fixing points (see Fig. 23 to \n26) in mm \n\n= vertical distance between the coupling point of \ncoupling balls which can be dismantled and the \nhorizontal plane of the fixing points (see Fig. 22 to \n26) in mm \n\n= acceleration due to gravity, assumed as 9,81 m/s2 \n= theoretical drawbar length between the centre of the \ndrawbar eye and the centre of the axle assembly in m \n\n= distance between drawbar eye and centre line of the \n\nsteered axle in mm \n= scrub radius in mm \n= track in mm \n= length of the loading area of a centre axle trailer in \n\nf \n\ng \n1 \n\nn \n\nr \ns \nx \n\nm \n\nSubscripts : \n\nU = bottom force \nw = alternating \nh = horizontal \ns = vertical \n\no = top force \n\n\f4. 4. 1 \n\n4. 1. 1 \n\n4. 1. 2 \n\n4. 1. 3 \n\n4. 1. 4 \n\n4. 1. 5 \n\nSpecific testing requirements \n\n- 54 -\n\nCoupling balls and towing brackets \n\nThe mechanical coupling devices of coupling balls may be of the \nfollowing types: \n\n- one-piece coupling balls including devices with non-\n\ninterchangeable detachable balls (see Fig. 21) \n\n- coupling balls, comprising a number of parts which can be \n\ndismantled (see Fig. 22,23,24) \ntowing brackets (see Fig. 25) \n\nThe basic test is an endurance test with an alternating test \nforce. The test specimen is the coupling ball, the ball neck and \nthe mountings necessary for attaching to the vehicle. The \ncoupling ball and towing brackets must be rigidly mounted to a \ntest rig, capable of producing alternating forces, in the actual \nposition in which it is intended for use. The positions of the fixing points for attaching the coupling \nball and towing brackets are specified by the vehicle \nmanufacturer (see Annex VII, Section 1. 3). The devices submitted to the test shall be provided with all \ndesign details which may have an influence on the strength \ncriteria (for examle electrical socket plate, any marking etc. ). The test periphery ends at the anchorage points or fitting \npoints. The geometric location of the coupling ball and the \nfixing points of the coupling device related to the reference \nline shall be provided by the vehicle manufacturer and shall be \nshown in the test report. All relative positions of the anchorage points with respect to \nthe reference line, for which the towing vehicle manufacturer \nshall provide all the necessary information to the towing device \nmanufacturer, shall be repeated on the test bed. The assembly mounted on the test bed shall be subjected to a \ntest on an alternating stress tensible testing machine (for \nexample on a resonance pulser). The test load shall be an alternating force and must be applied \nto the coupling ball at an angle of 15* \u00b1 1* as shown in Fig. 18 \nand/or Fig. 19. If the ball center is above that line parallel to the reference \nline as shown in Fig. 20 which contains the highest of the \nnearest fixing points, the test has to be carried out with an \nangle \nthat line parallel to the reference line as shown in Fig. 20 \nwhich contains the highest of the nearest fixing points, the \ntest has to be carried out with an angle \n19). This angle is chosen in order to take iccount of the vertical \nstatic and dynamic load. This test me* lod is only applicable to \na permitted static load of not more t *n S = 120 \u2022 D. If a \n\n= -15* \u00b1 1* (see Fig. 18). If the ball center is below \n\n= 15* i 1* (see Fig. static load above 120 \u2022 D is requested, the test angle should \n\n9 \n\ng \n\nbe increased to 20*. The dynamic test must be performed with the following test \nforce: Fhg r es = \u00b1 0,6 D \n\n\f- 55 \n\n-\n\nF i g. 18 Test r ig \n\nI \n\nF i g. 19 Test r ig \n\nI I \n\nreference \n\nl i ne \n\nh i g h e st \n\nf i x i ng p c i r. -\n\nl i ne p a r a l l el \n\nr e f e r e n ce \n\nl i ne \n\nre f e r e n ce 1 i ne \n\nb a ll center \n\nF i g. 20 C r i t e r ia \n\nf or \n\nthe t e st angles \n\n\f- 56 -\n\nT} \n\n\u00a3r \n\nK ^ -^ ^ \n\u2022 \ni I \n\ny< \n\u2022 \n\n^ \nI\" \n\nrt\\ \n\n# \n\nV \n\nF i g. 21 One coupling b a il \n\n4. 1. 6 \n\n4. 1. 6. 1 \n\nThe test procedure is applicable to the different types of \ncoupling devices (see 4. 1. 1) as follows : \n\nOne-piece coupling balls including devices with non-\ninterchangeable detachable balls (see Fig. 2 1 ). The strength test for the devices shown in Fig. 21 shall be \ncarried out according to the requirements of section 4. 1. 5. 4. 1. 6. 2 \n\nCoupling balls, comprising parts which can be dismantled. The following categories are defined: \n\n- towing bracket and ball (see Fig. 22) \n- towing bracket and ball on integral support (see Fig. 23) \n- towing bracket and ball (see Fig. 24) \n- towing bracket without ball (see Fig. 25) \n\nFig. 22 Towing bracket and ball \n\n\f- 57 -\n\n\\ N \\ ^ N S ^\\ X. T\\ \n\nFig. 23 Towing bracket and ball on integral support \n\nWVs^VjAX \n\nexi \n\nr-^H \n\nFig. 24 Towing bracket and ball \n\n\f- 58 -\n\nV, 4 / / S ,,/ A \n\nFig. 25 Towing bracket \n\nThe strength test for the devices shown in Fig. 22 to 24 shall \nbe carried out according to the requirements of Section 4. 1. 5. Dimensions e and f with a manufacturing tolerance of \u00b1 5 mm, \nshall be shown in the test report. The test of the towing bracket (see Fig. 25) shall be carried \nout with a mounted ball (on support). Account will be taken only \nof the results to the towing bracket between the fixing points \nand the mounting surface of the ball support. The dimensions e and f are to be specified by the coupling \ndevice manufacturer. 4. 1. 6. 3 \n\nCoupling devices with variable dimensions e and f for \ndemountable and interchangeable coupling balls. 4. 1. 6. 3. 1. The strength tests for such towing brackets (shown in figure 26) \nshall be carried out to the requirements of Section 4. 1. 5. 4. 1. 6. 3. 2. 4. 1. 6. 3. 3. If a worst case configuration can be defined by agreement \nbetween the manufacturer and the Technical Service, the testing \nof this one configuration alone shall be sufficient. Otherwise, several ball positions shall be tested in a \nsimplified test programme according to 4. 1. 6. 3. 3. In a simplified test programme, the value for f shall be between \na defined value of fmjn and a value of fm ax which does not \nexceed 100 mm. The ball shall be at a distance (em a x) of 130 \nmm from the support. To cover all possible positions of the ball, in the field given \nby the horizontal distance from the mounting surface and the \nvertical range of f (fmin to 'max)* t wo devices are to be \ntested: \n\n- one with a ball in top (fmax) a nd \n- one with a ball in low (fmjn) position. If the field of possible ball positions is divided by the line \nparallel reference line (see fig. 26c), the test angles are: \n-0C for the ball above, and +01 for the ball below that \nreference line (compare Fig. 20). a> fmax below line parallel reference line test angles: + OC \n\n- 59 -\n\nr e f e r e n ce line *\u00a9c \n\nbail beiow \n\nmax \n\nFig. 26a Towing bracket and support for a various number of ball posit! \n\nons \n\nb) fm ln above line parallel reference line test angles: - C* \n\nre fe r s n cs lines \n\n- 0/ \n\nl^ne c a r s i l el r e f e r e n ce \n\nl i ne \n\nTjH^ \u2014c<. j \n\nb a ll above \n\ne \n\nL _ \n\nT \n\nmax \n\nFig. 26b Towing bracket and support for a various number of ball posit! \n\nons \n\n\fc> *max ab0 ve n ne p a r a l l el \n\nr e f e r e n ce \n\nl i ne \n\nmin below \n\nl i ne p a r a l l el \n\nr e f e r e n ce \n\nl i ne \n\nt e st a n g l e s: + C * a nd - OL \n\n- 60 \n\n-\n\nl i ne p a r a l l el \n\nr e f e r e n ce \n\nl i n e/ \n\n' \n\n/ /, \n\ns f 6 r s n c s \n\ni _ n es \n\n! b a ll above \n\nb a ll below \n\nA \n\nv \n\nmax \n\nF i g. 26c Towing bracket and s u p p o rt \n\nf or a v a r i o us number of b a ll p o s i t i o ns \n\n4. 2 \n\n4. 2. 1 \n\n4. 2. 2 \n\nCoup Iing heads \n\nThe basic test is an endurance test with an alternating test \nforce and a static test (lifting test) on each test specimen. The dynamic test must be performed with a Class A coupling ball \nof appropriate strength. On the test rig the ball coupling and \ncoupling ball must be arranged as instructed by the manufacturer \nand in a way corresponding to their attachment in a vehicle. There should be no possibility of extra forces in addition to \nthe test force acting on the specimen. The test force must be applied along a line passing through the \ncentre of the ball and inclined downwards to the rear at 15\u00b0 \n(see Fig. 2 7 ). An endurance test must be performed on a test \nspecimen with the following test force: \n\n\f- 61 -\n\nFhs res w \u2022 * \u00b0-6 D \n\n<^ - --A5 \n\nFig. 27 Dynamic test \n\n4. 2. 3 \n\nA static lifting test must also be performed. The coupling ball \nused for the test must have a diameter of \n\n+ 0,13 \n\n49 \n\n- 0 \n\nmm \n\nin order to represent a worn coupling ball. The lifting force \nFA must be increased smoothly and quickly to a value of C +S \n\nand be held for 10 seconds (see Fig. 28). The coupling head \nshall not separate from the ball or exhibit any permanent \ndistortion which could have an adverse effect on its functional \ncapabiIity. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7/ \n\n/ / / y \n\nF i g. 28 L i f t i ng \n\nt e st \n\n\f4. 3 \n\nDrawbar couplings and mounting frames \n\n- 62 -\n\n4. 3. 1. An endurance test must be performed on one test specimen. The \ndrawbar coupling must be equipped with all the fixings needed to \nattach it to the vehicle frame. Any intermediate devices fitted between the drawbar coupling and \nthe vehicle frame (i. e. mounting frames) must be tested with the \nsame forces as the coupling. 4. 3. 2. Drawbar couplings for hinged drawbars (S=0) \n\nThe dynamic tests must be performed with a horizontal \nalternating force of F = o 6 n *\u2022' \nthe ground and in the ttfngirudinal median plane of the towing \nvehicle passing through the centre of the coupling pin. n i t-\n\n1* \n\n4. 3. 3. Drawbar couplings for use with centre axle trailers (S > 0 ). 4. 3. 3. 1. Centre axle trailer masses up to and including 3. 5. t \n\nDrawbar couplings for use with centre axle trailers up to and \nincluding a mass of 3. 5 t must be tested in the same way as \ncoupling balls and towing brackets described in 4. 1 of this \nAnnex. 4. 3. 3. 2 \n\nCentre axle trailer masses exceeding 3. 5. t \n\nThe test loads are applied to the specimen in the horizontal and \nvertical directions in an asynchronous endurance test. The \nhorizontal line of action must be parallel to the ground in the \nlongitudinal median plane of the towing vehicle and pass through \nthe centre of the coupling pin. The vertical line of action must \nbe perpendicular to the ground in the longitudinal median plane \nof the towing vehicle and pass through the centre of the \ncoupling pin (see Fig. 29). The fixing arrangements for the drawbar coupling and the drawbar \neye on the test bed shall be those intended for its attachment \nto the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturer's fitting \ninstructions. - 63 -\n\nThe following test loads shall be applied to the coupling \npoint \n\ntest load \n\nmean value (KN) amplitude (KN) \n\nhorizontal \nload \n\nvertical \nload \n\n0 \n\n+/- 0. 6 * D \n\ng \u00bb S \n1000 \n\n+/- 0. 6 * V \n\nThe test force is the geometrical sum of the vertical and the \nhorizontal components. This can be achieved by the test bed \nconfiguration shown in Fig. 29. The vertical and the horizontal \ncomponents shall be sinusoidal in shape and shall be applied \nasynchronously, where the difference of their frequencies shall \nbe between 1% and 3%, so that resulting test forces in all \ndirections are created. 4. 3. 4. Static test on coupling pin locking device \n\nWith drawbar couplings it is also necessary to test the closure \nand any locking devices by means of a static force of 0. 25 D \nacting in the direction of opening. The test must not cause the \nclosure to open and it must not cause any damage. A test force \nof 0. 1 D is sufficient in the case of cylindrical coupling pins \n\n\f- 64 -\n\n* \" t > \u00abi te st load \n\n// / r/ //J////////////////// \n\n>*/ /'/>///////// \n\n/SS//S-/S \n\nSSSS/s} \n\n4. 4 \n\n4. 4. 1 \n\n4. 4. 2 \n\n4. 5 \n\n4. 5. 1 \n\nExample of test bed configuration \n\nFig. 29 Testrig for drawbar couplings (example) \n\nDrawbar eyes \n\nDrawbar eyes must be subjected to the same dynamic testing as \ndrawbar couplings. Drawbar eyes used solely for trailers having \nhinged drawbars allowing free vertical movement must be \nsubjected to an alternating load as described in 4. 3. 2. Drawbar \neyes also intended for use on centre axle trailers must be \ntested in the same way as ball couplings (4. 2. ) for trailer \nmasses C up to and Including 3. 5 t and in the same way as \ndrawbar couplings (4. 3. 3. 2. ) for centre axle trailer with a \nmass C exceeding 3. 5 t. The testing of drawbar eyes must be conducted In such a manner \nthat the alternating load also acts on the parts used for \nattaching the drawbar eye to the drawbar. All flexible \nintermediate components must be clamped. Drawbars \n\nDrawbars shall be tested In the same way as drawbar eyes (see \n4. 4). The technical service may waive an endurance test if the simple \ndesign of a component makes a theoretical check of Its strength \npossIbIe. The design loads for the endurance test or the theoretical \nverification of the drawbar of centre axle trailers with a \nmass C of up to and including 3. 5 t shall be taken from ISO \n7641/1 (1983). - 65 -\n\nThe design loads for the theoretical verification of drawbars \nfor centre axle trailers having a mass C over 3,5 t must be \ncalculated as follows: \n\nF\n\nsw - \u00b1 0. 6 ( 1000 + V) \nwhere the force amplitude V is that given in Annex 1, Section \n2. 1. 19. The asynchronous nature of the horizontal and vertical force \ncomponents must be taken into account by multiplying the sum of \nthe bending moments by a factor 0. 75. This reduced total bending \nmoment must not be less than the maximum individual bending \nmoment. In addition to the endurance test or theoretical verification of \nstrength, the resistance to buckling must be verified either by \na theoretical calculation with a design load of 1,8 X D or by a \nbuckling test with a design load of 3 X D. In the case of steered axles, theoretical calculation must \nverify the maximum permitted bending stresses due to lateral \nforces. design loads : \n\nF \n\nqy \u00ab g* 0. 18 * Aj, \u2022 r (for stub axle steering) \n\nF \n\nqv \u2022 g* 0. 18 \u2022 Ay * \u00a3 (for fifth wheelr steering) \n\nFifth wheel couplings \n\nThe basic strength tests are a dynamic test and a static test \n(lifting test). Fifth wheel couplings intended for the positive \nsteering of semi-trailers must be subject to an additional \nstatic test (bending test). For the purpose of the tests the fifth wheel coupling must be \nequipped with all the fixings needed to attach it to the \nvehicle. The method of mounting must be identical to that \nemployed subsequently on the vehicle itself. 4. 5. 2 \n\n4. 5. 3. 4. 6. 4. 6. 1 \n\n4. 6. 2. Static tests \n\n4. 6. 2. 1 \n\nstandard fifth wheel couplings designed for a steering wedge or \nsimilar device for the positive steering of semi-trailers (see \nAnnex V, Section 7. 9) must be tested for adequate strength by \nmeans of a static bending test within the working range of the \nsteering device with the simultaneous application of fifth wheel \nload. The maximum permitted fifth wheel load U must be applied \nvertically on the coupling in its operating position by means of \na rigid plate of sufficient size to cover the coupling \ncompletely. 4. 6. 2. 2 \n\n- 66 -\n\nThe resultant of the applied load must pass through the centre \nof the horizontal Joint of the fifth wheel coupling. Simultaneously, a horizontal lateral force, representing the \nforce needed for positive steering of the semi-trailer, must be \napplied to the flanks of the guide for the coupling pin. The \nmagnitude of this force and the direction in which it acts must \nbe chosen so that a moment of 0. 75 m X D is exerted about the \ncentre of the coupling pin. The moment should be applied by means of a force acting on a \nlever arm 0. 5 m long. Permanent (plastic) distortion up to 0. 5 % \nof all nominal dimensions is permitted. There must be no \ncracking. A static lifting test must be performed on all fifth wheel \ncouplings. Up to a lifting force of FA - g-U there must be \nno major permanent bending of the coupling plate over more than \n0. 2 % of its width. In the case of Class G50 standard fifth wheel couplings and \ncomparable couplings for the same coupling pin diameter there \nmust be no separation of the coupling pin from the coupling with \na I ift ing force of \n\nFA - 9 \n\n2. 5 \u2022 U. The force should be applied by means of a lever bearing on the \ncoupling plate at one end and being raised at the other end at a \ndistance of 1. 0 to 1. 5 m from the centre of the coupling pin \n(see Fig. 3 0 ). The lever arm must be at 90\u00b0 to the direction of entry of the \ncoupling pin into the coupling. A second test with the lever arm \nrepositioned at 180\u00b0 shall be performed. For the second test a new specimen may be used. Sketch of the test rig \n\nLooking from the rear \n\nFig. 30 Lifting test on fifth wheel couplings \n\n\f4. 6. 3 \n\nDynamic test \n\n- 67 -\n\nThe fifth wheel coupling must be subjected to alternating stress \non a test rig (asynchronous dynamic test) with horizontal \nalternating and vertical pulsating forces acting simultaneously. 4. 6. 3. 1 \n\nIn the case of fifth wheel couplings not intended for the \npositive steering of semi-trailers the following forces must be \nused: \n\nHorizontal: F \n\nhw \n\nVertical: F \n\npsO \nsU \n\nt 0. 6 \u2022 D \n\ng \u2022 1. 2 \u2022 U \ng \u2022 0. 4 \u2022 U \n\nThese two forces must be applied in the longitudinal median \nplane of the vehicle with F \n7. ,. the joint of the coupling. s u#u F \nThe vertical force F \n\n\u00abo u passing through the centre of \n^. ^ \n\n,. ^ \n\n* \n\nso U alternates between the limits \n\n+1 2 \n\n\u2022 u and +0. 4 \u2022 U \n\nand the horizontal force between \n+0. 6 \n\n\u2022 D and -0. 6* D. 4. 6. 3. 2 \n\nIn the case of fifth wheel couplings intended for the positive \nsteering of semi-trailers the following forces must be used:. _ \u201e__ ^ \nhw \u00bb * 0-67* * D \n\nhorizontal: F \n\nvertical: F \n\nsO,U as in 4. 6. 3. 1 \n\nThe lines of action of the forces are shown in 4. 6. 3. 1. 4. 6. 3. 3 \n\nFor the dynamic test of fifth wheel couplings, a suitable \nlubricating sheet material shall be placed between the coupling \nplate and the trailer plate so that a maximum friction \ncoefficient of JJ = 0. 15 is assured. 4. 7 \n\nMounting plates for fifth wheel couplings \n\nThe dynamic test for fifth wheel couplings described in 4. 6. 3 \nand the static tests described in 4. 6. 2 must be applied \nappropriately to mounting plates. With mouting plates it is \nsufficient to perform the lifting test on one side only. The \ntest must be based on the maximum assigned installation height \nfor the coupling, the maximum assigned width and the minimum \nassigned lenght of the mounting plate design. It is not \nnecessary to carry out this test if the mounting plate is \nnarrower and/or longer and the total height lower, but otherwise \nidentical to a design which has already undergone this test. 4. 8 \n\n4. 8. 1 \n\nFifth wheel coupling pins of semi-trailers \n\n- 68 -\n\nA dynamic test with alternating stress must be performed on a \nspecimen on a test rig. The testing of the coupling pin must not \nbe combined with the testing of the fifth wheel coupling. The \ntest must be conducted so that the load is also applied to the \nfixings needed for attaching the coupling pin to the semi \ntrailer. 4. 8. 2 \n\nA dynamic test with a horizontal load of F \nmust be applied to the coupling pin in thehopIratxn\u00a7 position. The line of action of the force must pass through the centre of \nthe smallest diameter of the cylindrical part of the coupling \npin having a diameter of 50. 8 mm for Class H50 (see annex V, \nFig. 17). - 69 -\n\nANNEX VII \n\nRequirements relating to the type-approval of the vehicle type \nwith regard to the optional attachment of mechanical coupling \ndevices to this vehicle. General requirements \n\nThe vehicle manufacturer shall state which types and classes of \ncoupling devices may be fitted to the vehicle type giving the \nvalues of D, V, S or U (if applicable) which are based on the \nconstruction of the vehicule type in combination with the \ntype(s) of the coupling device(s) intended to be used. The \ncharacteristics D, V, S or U of the coupling devices approved in \naccordance with this Directive shall be equal or greater than \nthe characteristics given for the combination concerned. The coupling device shall be attached to the vehicle type \naccording to the installation instructions, given by the vehicle \nmanufacturer in agreement with the coupling manufacturer and the \nTechnical Service. The vehicle manufacturer shall state the \nappropriate attachment points for the coupling device on the \nvehicle type and, if necessary, mounting brackets, mounting \nplates, etc. to be. fitted on the specific vehicle type. Only automatic coupling devices which allow an automatic \ncoupling procedure on motor vehicles shall be employed for the \ncoupling of trailers having a maximum mass of more than 3,5 t. When mounting coupling devices of classes B, D, E and H on \ntrailers, a value of 32 t for the maximum mass T of the towing \nvehicle must taken into account for D-value calculation. If the \nD-value of the coupling device is not sufficient for T = 32 t, \nthe resulting restriction on the mass T of the towing vehicle or \nthe mass of the vehicle' combination must be stated in the EEC \nvehicle type approval certificate of the trailer (AnnexIX). 1. 1. 1 \n\n1. 2 \n\n1. 3 \n\n1. 4 \n\n\f2. 2. 1 \n\n2. 1. 1 \n\nSpecial requirements \n\n- 70 -\n\nAttachment of coupling balls and towing brackets \n\nCoupling balls and towing brackets must be attached to a vehicle \nin a manner which conforms to the clearance and height \ndimensions given in Fig. 31. <5' \n\nProfit* vt\u00abwr (\u00bb\u00abcx\u00bb*\u00bb0>&\"A \n\ns i \n_!J_ \n\nwww /taction d-S) \n\nFig. 31 Clearance space for coupling balls \nAny details not given must be selected appropriately. The dimensions and angles should be checked with suitable instruments \n\n\f2. 1. 2 \n\n2. 1. 3 \n\n2. 1. 4 \n\n2. 2 \n\n2. 2. 1 \n\n- 71 -\n\nFor coupling balls and towing brackets the vehicle manufacturer \nmust supply mounting instructions and state whether any \nreinforcement of the fixing area is necessary. It must also be possible to couple and uncouple ball couplings \nwhen the longitudinal axis of the ball coupling in relation to \nthe centre line of the coupling ball and mounting: \n\na) is horizontally B - 60\u00b0 to right or left (see Fig. 31) \nb) is vertically \nc) is axially rotated 10\u00b0 to right or left. - 10\u00b0 up or down (see fig. 31) \n\nThe mounted coupling ball must not obscure the place or \nvisibility of the rear license plate, otherwise a coupling ball \nwhich can be dismantled has to be used. Attachment of coupling heads \n\nClass B coupling heads are permitted for trailers of the maximum \nmass up to and including 3. 5. t. With the trailer horizontal and carrying the maximum permitted \naxle load, coupling heads must be attached so that the coupling \npoint of the trailer is 430 \u00b1 35 mm above the horizontal plane \non which the wheels of the trailer stand (see Fig. 3 2 ). In the case of caravans and goods trailers, the horizontal \nposition is regarded as when the floor or loading surface is \nhorizontal. In the case of trailers without such a reference \nsurface (e. g. boat trailers of similar) the trailer manufacturer \nmust give an appropriate reference line defining the horizontal \npos i 11on. 2. 2. 2 \n\nIt must be possible to operate the coupling heads safely within \nthe free space of the coupling ball given in Fig. 31. The hand \nlever must be shaped in such a manner that there is existing an \nadequate freer space for the hands withing the operating area of \nthe hand lever including the removal of the coupling head from \nthe coup Iing balI. , * ; * / * * * * * * ' \u2022 \u2022 * ' ' * ' * * ' ' '' \n\nFig. 32 Mounting height of a coupling head \n\n\f2. 3 \n\n2. 3. 1 \n\nAttachment of drawbar couplings and mounting blocks \n\nMounting dimensions for standard drawbar couplings \n\n- 72 -\n\nIf types of standard drawbar couplings are intended to be fitted \nto the vehicle type, the mounting dimensions on the vehicle \ngiven in Fig. 33 and Table 8 must be met. Fig. 33 Mounting dimensions for standard drawbar couplings (see Table 8) \n\n\f2. 3. 2 \n\nNeed for remote controlled couplings \n\n- 73 -\n\nIf one or more of the following rules regarding easy and safe \noperation (2. 3. 3), accessibility (2. 3. 4) or clearance for the \nhand lever (2. 3. 5) cannot be met, a coupling with a remote \ncontrol device as described in Annex V, section 10. 3 must be \nused. 2. 3. 3 \n\nEasy and safe coupling operation \n\nDrawbar couplings must be mounted on the vehicle type in such a \nmanner that they are easy and safe to operate. In addition to the functions of opening (and closing, if \napplicable) this also includes checking the position of the \nindicator for the closed and secured position of the coupling \npin (by sight and touch). In the area in which the person operating the coupling must \nstand, there must be no points of possible danger such as sharp \nedges, corners, etc. inherent in the design or they must be \nprotected so that injury is unlikely. The way of escape from this area must not be restricted or \nbarred on either side by any attached objects. Any underrun protection device must not prevent the person \nadopting a suitable position to operate the coupling. 2. 3. 4 \n\nAccessibility \n\nThe distance between the centre of the coupling pin and the rear \nedge of the vehicle bodywork must not exceed 420 mm. However, the distance of 420 mm may be exceeded if technical \nnecessity can be demonstrated: \n\n1. a distance of up to 650 mm for vehicles with tipping \n\nbodies or rear-mounted equipment \n\n2. a distance of up to 1320 mm if the unobstructed \n\nheight is at least 1150 mm \n\n3. car transporters with at least two loading levels when the \n\ntrailer vehicle is not separated from the towing vehicle in \nnormal transport operation, \n\nprovided easy and safe actuation of the drawbar coupling is not \nadversly affected. 2. 3. 5 \n\nClearance for the hand lever \n\nIn order to permit safe operation of drawbar couplings there \nmust be adequate free space around the hand lever. The clearance illustrated in Fig. 34 is regarded as sufficient. - 74 -\n\nIf different types of standard drawbar couplings are intended to \nbe fitted to the vehicle type, the clearance must be such that \nthe conditions are also satisfied for the largest size of \ncoupling of the appropriate class given in Annex V, Section 3. The dimensions are also applicable as appropriate for drawbar \ncouplings having hand levers pointing downwards or of a \ndifferent design. The clearance must also be maintained within the specified \nminimum angle for coupling-up and uncoupling given in Annex V, \nSection 3. 6. 2. 3. 6 \n\nclearance for free movement of drawbar coupling \n\nThe drawbar coupling attached to the vehicle must have a minimum \nclearance of 10 mm from every other part of the vehicle taking \ninto account all possible geometrical positions of the coupling \nthat can be adopted. If different types of stadard drawbar couplings are intended to \nbe fitted to the vehicle type, the clearance must be such that \nthe conditions are also satisfied for the largest possible \ncoupling of the appropriate class stated in Annex V, Section 3. 2. 3. 7 \n\nAdmissibility of drawbar couplings with a special joint for \nvertical rotation (see Fig. 6) \n\ncouplings having a cylindrical pin and which achieve vertical \nrotation for the coupled drawbar eye by means of a special joint \nwill only be permitted in cases when technical necessity can be \ndemonstrated. This may be the case, for example, on rear tippers \nwhen the coupling head must be hinged, or with the couplings of \nheavy transporters when for strength reasons the use of a \ncylindrical coupling pin is necessary. Table 8 Mounting dimensions for standard drawbar couplings \n\n- 75 -\n\nC50-1 C50-2 \n\nC50-3 \n\nC50-4 \n\nC50-5 C50-6 \n\nC50-7 \n\nremark \n\ne1 \n\ne2 \n\nd1 \n\nd2 \n\nT \n\nF \n\nG \n\n83 \n\n56 \n\n-\n\n-\n\n54 \n\n10,5 \n\n15 \n\n120 \n\n140 \n\n55 \n\n75 \n\n15 \n\n20 \n\n80 \n\n85 \n\n17 \n\n25 \n\n120 \n\n95 \n\n165 \n\n190 \n\n100 \n\n130 \n\nL1 \n\n-\n\n200 \n\n300 \n\n160 \n\n100 \n\n95 \n\n21 \n\n200 \n\n+/-0. 5 \n\n120 \n\n+/-0. 5 \n\n125 \n\n+1/-0. 5 \n\n25 \n\nH13 \n\n25 \n\n30 \n\nmax. 210 \n\n150 \n\n400 \n\n260 \n\nmin. 180 \n\nmin. min. Fig. 34 Hand lever clearance \n\n\f2. 4 \n\n2. 4. 1 \n\n2. 4. 2 \n\n2. 5 \n\n2. 5. 1 \n\n2. 5. 2 \n\n2. 5. 3 \n\n2. 5. 4 \n\n- 76 -\n\nAttachment of drawbar eyes and drawbars on trailers \n\nDrawbars for centre axle trailers must have a support device \nadjustable in height if the vertical bearing load at the drawbar \neye on the trailer type exceeds 50 kg, when the trailer is \nuniformly loaded to its technically permissible maximum mass. When attaching drawbar eyes and drawbars to centre axle trailers \nwith a maximum mass c of more than 3. 5 t and more than one axle, \nthey must be equipped with a device for axle load sharing such \nthat when one axle is lifted by 6 cm the load of this axle does \nnot increase by more than 25%, when uniformly loaded to its \ntechnically permissible maximum mass. Attachment of fifth wheel couplings, mounting plates and \ncoupling pins on vehicles \n\nclass G50 fifth wheel couplings must not be mounted directly on \nthe vehicle frame unless permitted by the vehicle manufacturer. They must be fixed to the frame by means of the mounting plate, \nthe installation instructions provided by the vehicle \nmanufacturer or coupling manfacturer must be followed. Semi-trailers must be equipped with landing gear or an other \nequipment which allows uncoupling and parking of the semi \ntrailer. If semi-trailers are equipped so that the connection of \nthe coupling devices, the electrical systems and braking systems \ncan be effected automatically, the trailer must have landing \ngear which retracts from the ground automatically after the \nsemi-trailer has been coupled up. The fixing of the fifth wheel coupling pin in the mounting plate \non the semi-trailer must be as instructed by the vehicle \nmanufacturer or manufacturer of the fifth wheel coupling. If a semi-trailer is equipped with a steering wedge it must meet \nthe requirements as described in Annex V, Sections 7. 9. 1 and \n7. 9. 2. - 77 -\n\nANNEX VXII \n\nInformation Document No \n\npursuant to Annex I of Council Directive 76/156/EEC \nrelating to EEC Type approval of a vehicle with respect to the \nFitting of Mechanical Coupling Devices (. /. EEC) \n\n0. 0. 1 \n0. 2 \n0. 3 \n0. 3. 1 \n0. 4 \n0. 5 \n\n1. 1. 1 \n1. 4 \n1. 5 \n\n2. 2. 2 \n2. 2. 1 \n2. 2. 2 \n\n2. 4. 2 \n2. 4. 2. 5 \n2. 6 \n\n2. 6. 1 \n\n2. 8 \n\n2. 8. 1 \n\n2. 9 \n\nGENERAL \n\nMake (trade name of manufacturer)! \ntype and commercial description^): \nMeans of identification of type, if marked on the vehicle. Location of that marking: \nCategory of vehicle (see Annex II of 70/156/EEC): \nName and address of manufacturer: \n\n: \n\nGENERAL CONSTRUCTION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VEHICLE \n\nPhotographs and/or drawings of a representative vehicle: \nchassis (if any) (overall drawing): \nMaterial used for the side-members. (d), \n\nMASSES AND DIMENSIONS \nwhere applicable) \n\n( e) <in k9 and mm) (refer to drawing \n\nIn the case of tractive units \nFifth wheel lead (maximum and minimum) \nMaximum height of the fifth wheel (standardized),. k \n(n) \n\nFor chassis with bodywork \nRear overhang \nMass of the vehicle with bodywork in running order, or mass of \nthe chassis with cab if the manufacturer does not fit the \nbodywork (including coolant, oils, fuel, tools, spare wheel end \ndriver) \nDistribu!ioAmd*-tn5d- maBs am5nfa\u20ac&ev\u00abxle8nand, in the case of a \nsemi-trailer, load on the fifth wheel coupling pin (max. and \nmin. for each version): \n\nTechnically permissible maximum laden mass stated by the \nmanufacturer (max. and min. for each version): \nDistribution of this mass among the axles and, in the case of a \nsemi-trailer, load on the fifth wheel coupling pin (max. and \nmin. for each version): \nTechnically permissible maximum mass on each axle and, in the \ncase of a semi-trailer, load on the fifth wheel coupling pin \nstated by the manufacturer: \n\n2. 10 \n2. 10. 1 \n2. 10. 2 \n2. 10. 3 \n2. 10. 3. 1 \n\nMaximum mass of trailer which may be coupled \nFull trailer: \nSemi-trailer: \nCentre-axle trailer: \nIndicate the maximum ratio of the coupling overhang \nwheelbase: \n\n( q) to t he \n\n\f2. 10. 3. 2 \n\nMaximum V-value (kN): \n\n- 78 -\n\n2. 10. 4 \n2. 10. 6 \n\n2. 11 \n2. 11. 1 \n2. 11. 2 \n\n9. 9. 1 \n\n9. 2 \n\n11. 11. 1 \n\n11. 2 \n11. 3 \n\n11. 4 \n\nMaximum mass of the combination: \nMaximum mass of unbraked trailer: \n\nMaximum vertical load \nOn the vehicle's coupling point for a trailer: \non the drawbar of a trailer: \n\nBODYWORK \n\nType of bodywork: \n\nMaterials used and methods of construction: \n\nCONNECTIONS BETWEEN DRAWING VEHICLES AND TRAILERS AND SEMI \n\nTRAILERS \n\nClass and type of the coupling device(s): \n\nMaximum D-value: \nInstructions of attachment of the coupling type to the vehicle \nand photographs or drawings of the fixing points at the vehicle \ngiven by the manufacturer; additional information, if the use of \nthe coupling type is restricted to special types of vehicles: \n\nkN \n\nInformation of the fitting of special towing brackets of \nmounting plates \n\nI1): \n\nDate, File \n\n\f- 79 -\n\nANNEX IX \n\nMODEL \n(maximum format: A4 (210 X 297)) \n\nEEC TYPE-APPROVAL CERTIFICATE \n\nCommunication concerning the \n- type-approval \n- extension of type-approval \n- refusal of type-approval J \n- withdrawal of type approval \n\nof a type of a vehicle with regard to Directive \n\nType-approval number \n\nReason for extension: \n\nSECTION I \n\n0. 1 \n0. 2 \n0. 3 \n0. 3. 1 \n0. 4 \n0. 5 \n\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Make (trade name of manufacturer): \nType and commercial description^) : \nMeans of identification of type if marked on the vehicle _ \n(3) \nLocation of that marking: \nx ' \nCategory of vehicle: \nName and address of manufacturer: \n\nSECTION II \n\nAdditional information (where applicable): See \nAppendix I \nTechnical service responsible for carrying out the tests: \nDate of test report: \nNumber of test report: \nRemarks (if any): See appendix I \nPlace: \nDate: \nSignature: \nThe index to the information package lodged with the competent \nauthority that has granted type approval, which may be obtained \non request, is attached. (1) \n\n(2) \n\nDelete where not applicable \n\nIn the case of components the EEC type-approval number appearing on \n\ndocument shall consist of all sections outlined in Annex VII to \n\nDirective 70/156/EEC, as last amended by Directive. /. EEC. The \n\ncomponent itself shall be marked as prescribed in the relevant separ \n\nDirective. (3) \n\nIf the means of identification of type contains characters not relev \n\nto describe the vehicle, component or separate technical unit types \n\ncovered by this information document/type-approval certificate such \n\ncharacters shall be represented in the documentation by the symbol: \n\n\f- 80 -\n\nAppendix I \n\nto EEC type-approval certificate no \n\nconcerning the type approval of a vehicle with regard to \nDirective. /. EEC \n\nAdditional information \n\nVehicle construction, bodywork/chassis: \nMaterials used: \n\nClass of the coupling device, EEC type-approval number: \n\nUse of towing brackets or mounting plates; attachment \ninstructions of the coupling type: \n\nEEC vehicle type approval is extended to the following type(s) \nof coupling device and class(es): \n\nMaximum mass of the vehicle type T or R \ncoupling device: \n\nt \n\n(1> fitted with the \n\nMaximum vertical load S or fifth wheel load U \nvehicle type fitted with the coupling device:. ;. 9\u00a3g\u00a3fee \n\nMaximum V-value of a centre axle trailer: \n\nkN \n\nMaximum towable mass of the motor vehicle \n\n<!>: \n\nRemarks: \n\n1. 1. 1 \n1. 1. 1 \n\n1. 2 \n\n1. 3 \n\n1. 4 \n\n1. 5 \n\n1. 6 \n\n1. 7 \n\n1. 8 \n\n5. - 81 -\n\nIMPACT STATEMENT ON COMPETITIVENESS AND JOBS \n\nProposal for a Council Directive relating to the mechanical coupling devices \nof motor vehicles and trailers and their attachment to these vehicles \n\nI. What is the main justification of the measure? \n\n- \n\n- \n- \n- \n\nCompletion of the EEC type-approval procedure for road vehicles and \ncoupling devices \nHarmonization of national laws \nImprovements to road safety \nInterchangeability of motor vehicles and trailers with regard to \ninternational transport within the Community \n\nII. Characteristics of the companies involved \n\nMore particularly, \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n\nDo they include a large number of SME? - No \nAre there any significant regional concentrations? - No \nAre they eligible for regional aid from the MS? - No \nAre they eligible for aid from the ERDF? - No \n\nIII. What obligations are imposed on those companies? \n\nMerely the obligation to comply with what the Directive lays down with \nregard to type approval and the manufacture of coupling devices. IV. What obligations are likely to be imposed indirectly upon these \ncompanies via the local authorities? \n\nNo additional obligation \n\nV. Do any special measures apply to SME? \n\nWhat are they? \n\nNone \n\nVI. What is the foreseeable impact on \n\n- \n\n- \n\ncompany productivity? No foreseeable impact \n\njobs? No foreseeable impact \n\nVII. Have both sides of industry been consulted? Yes \n\n- Opinion of the two sides of industry: no objections \n\nidl03/KB/DIRECT/imp4226en \n\n\f\fISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 108 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n07 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-120-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42161-4 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0e27cc7f-b735-4f32-af00-808f7704c8b5", "title": "PROPOSAL for a RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES on a Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_other,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "EU environmental policy,action programme,application of EU law,cooperation policy,environmental protection,rural development,sustainable development", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0023,comnat:COM_1992_0023_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU environmental policy", "action programme", "application of EU law", "cooperation policy", "environmental protection", "rural development", "sustainable development"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0e27cc7f-b735-4f32-af00-808f7704c8b5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES\n\nCOM ( 92 ) 23\n\nfinal\n\n- VOL. I\n\nBrussels , 27 March 1992\n\nPROPOSAL\n\nfor a\n\nRESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES\n\non a Community programme of policy and\naction in relation to the environment and sustainable\n\ndevelopment\n\n( presented by the Commission )\n\nVOLUME I\n\n/\u25a0>\n\n\u043e\n\n<\u042c\n\n\u00f9. 0 %\nSo\n\nO\n\n\u0415\u0439\n\n!\n\n\u00ef\n\n\u25a0\n\n\u2022\u03af\u038a. a\n\ni\n\n\u25a0\n\n4\n\n1\n-s\nH\n\n\u20225\n\nH\n\n\u0447\n\n!\n\n<\n\n\fPROPOSAI. for a\n\nRESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES\n\non a Community programme of pol icy and\naction in relation to the environment and sustainable\n\ndeve I opment\n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,\n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European\nCoa I and Stee I Commun i ty ,\n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European\nEconom i c Commun i ty ,\n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European\nAtom i c Commun i ty ,\n\nHaving regard to the draft from the Commission ,\n\nHav i ng\nPar I\n\ni ament ,\n\n' regard\n\nto\n\nthe\n\nopinion\n\nof\n\nthe\n\nEuropean\n\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social\nComm i ttee ,\n\namended\n\ni sh i ng the European Economic\nWhereas the Treaty estab I\nAct ,\nby\nCommunity ,\nas\nfor\nand\nexplicitly\nand\nfor\nimplementation of a Community policy on the environment ,\nand lays douun the objectives and principles iuh i ch should\ngovern such policy ;\n\nEuropean\ndevelopment\ndeve I opment\n\nprovides\nprov i des\n\nSingle\n\nthe\n\nthe\nthe\n\n\f- 2\n\nthe\n\nWhereas\nCommunity relating to the environment shall\nfollowing objectives :\n\ndown | that\n\nTreaty\n\nlays\n\naction\n\nby\n\nthe\nhave the\n\nto preserve , protect and improve the quality of the\nenv i ronment ,\n\nto contribute towards protecting human health ,\n\nto ensure a prudent and rational\nnatural resources ;\n\nutilization of\n\na\n\n7\n\non\n\non\n\nhas\n\nthe\n\nthe\n\nTreaty\n\nsigned\n\nFebruary\n\nUnion\nas\n\nEuropean\n1992\n\nat\nWhereas\nMaastricht\nprincipal\nobjective the promotion of sustainable growth respecting\nincludes among the activities of the\nthe environment ,\nUnion\nenvironment ,\nin\npolicy\na\nspecifies that this policy must aim at a high level of\nthat environmental protection requirements\nprotection ,\nand\nmust\nthe\nintegrated\ndefinition\nimplementation\nthat\nand\ncontribute to\nCommunity policy on the environment must\npromoting measures at international\nlevel to deal with\nregional or worldwide environmental problems. other Community policies\n\nsphere\n\ninto\n\nthe\n\nbe\n\nof\n\nof\n\nof\n\nof\n\nof\nof\n\nand\n\nthe\n\n1973 ^)\n1973' ' *\n\nRepresentatives\n\nWhereas the Declaration of the Council of the European\nthe\nCommunities\nGovernments of the Member States , meeting within the\nNovember\nCouncil. 22\nthe\nthe\nNovember\n22\nCouncil ,\na European Communities programme of\nimplementation of\naction on the environment ; whereas the action programme\nwas extended and supplemented for the period 1977 to\nthe\n1992\nthe\nRepresentatives of the Governments of the Member States ,\nof\n1977 ^),\nmeeting\n1977(2 ), of\n7 February 19B3 < 3 )\n\nof\nand of 19 October 19S7 < 4 );\n\nthe Council ,\n\nresolutions\n\n17 May\n17 May\n\nwithin\n\nCounci I\n\ncalled\ncalled\n\nfor\nfor\n\nthe\n\nand\n\nthe\n\nby\n\nof\n\n( 1 ) OJ N \" C 112. 20. 12. 1973\n( 2 ) OJ N * C 139. 13. 6. 1977\n( 3 ) OJ N * C 46. 17. 2. 1983\n( 4 ) OJ N' C 328. 7. 12. 1987\n\n\f3\n\nthe Heads\n\nthe Declaration of\n\nState and\nWhereas\nof 26 June 1990 calls\nGovernment , meeting in Council ,\nfor a further action programme for the environment to be\nelaborated on the basis of the principles of sustainable\nand\ndevelopment , preventive and precautionary action ,\nshared responsibility ;\n\nof\n\nWhereas the said Declaration also acknow I edges the wider\nresponsibilities of the Community and its Member States ,\nas one of the foremost regional groupings in the world ,\nto\nand\nin\nconcerted\nworking with other\neffective action at global\ndeveloping\nindustrialised\ncountries to overcome their special difficulties ;\n\nlevel ,\nand\n\npromoting\n\ncountries ,\n\nassisting\n\nleading\n\nplay\n\nrole\n\na\n\nadopt\n\nWhereas the Community\u2019s credibility and effectiveness at\nthis wider level depends in large measure on the ability\nfor\nto\nimplementation and enforcement by its Member States ; and\nwhereas , therefore , the internal and external dimensions\nof Community environment policy are inextricably linked ;\n\nenvironmental\n\nprogressive\n\nmeasures\n\nin\n\nthe\n\nwith\n\nconformity\n\nof\nWhereas ,\nsubsidiarity , many aspects of the policy and specific\nactions to which the Programme \" Towards Sustainability\u201d\nat levels other\nwill give rise fall to be carried out\nthan those involving the powers , duties and competences\nof the European Communities. principle\n\nWhereas the strategy advanced in the Programme relies on\nother\nof\nsatisfactory\nrelevant policies and on the complementarity of measures\nand - actions at different\nlevels so as optimise their\neffectiveness ;\n\nenvironment\n\nintegration\n\nand\n\n\f4\n\nby\n\nthe\n\nCommission\n\nACKNOWLEDGES that the Programme \" Towards Sustainability \"\nthe\npresented\nobjectives and principles set out in the Declaration of\nthe Heads of State and Government of\nthe Community\nmeeting in Council on 26 June 1S90 and in thB Treaty on\nEuropean Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992 ;\n\nclosely\n\nfollows\n\nACKNOWLEDGES that many current forms of activity and\ndevelopment are not environmentally sustainable ;\n\nENDORSES , accordingly , the Programme\u2019s general objective\nof\nand\ndevelopment towards more sustainable forms ;\n\nprogressively\n\norientating\n\nactivity\n\nhuman\n\nAGREES that the achievement of sustainable development\nwill require significant changes from current patterns\nof development , consumption and behaviour ;\n\nDECLARES that such changes cannot be ach i eved w i thout a\nsharing\nCommunity ,\nnational , regional ,\n\nlocal and even personal levels ;\n\nresponsibi I ity\n\nglobal ,\n\nat\n\nof\n\nInsofar\n\nas\n\nenvironment\n\nand\n\ndevelopment\n\nw / thi n\n\nthe\n\nE uropean Commun 1 1 1 es are concer ned :\n\nNOTES the Report on the State of the Environment which\nin conjunction with the\nthe Commission has published\nProgramme ;\nprevious\nthat\npositive\nnotes\naction programmes have made on certain environmental\nproblems ; notes that the end of the time-frame of the\ncurrent action programme on the environment coincides\nwith the completion of the Internal\n\nMarKet ;\n\nimpact\n\nthe\n\n\f5\n\nhowever ,\n\nthat the current measures do not\nCONSIDERS ,\nto meet the increased pressures\nappear to be sufficient\non the environment\nin consequence of\nlikely to arise\ncurrent and anticipated trends in economic and social\nand\nactivity within the Community and the political\neconomic developments in Central and Eastern Europe and\nat wider international level ;\n\nAGREES that a more progressive and better co-ordinated\npolicy and strategy for the environment and sustainable\ndevelopment is\n\ncalled for ;\n\nand\n\nENDORSES the strategy of tackling key sectors in a co \u00ac\nmanner\nordinated\nthat,\nbecause of their\nimportance throughout the\nCommunity special attention should be directed towards\nthe industry , energy , transport , agriculture and tourism\nsectors ;\n\ncomprehensive\nimpact and\n\nagrees\n\nand\n\nlevels of society in a\nAGREES that involvement of all\nAGREES that involvement of all\nspirit of shared responsibility will require a deepening\nand broadening of the range of instruments to complement\nnormative legislation including ,\n\nin particular ,\n\nmarket-based\nfiscal incentives ;\n\ninstruments ,\n\nincluding\n\neconomic\n\nand\n\ninformation , \u00e9ducation and training ;\n\nfinancial support mechanisms ;\n\nNOTES the objectives , targets , actions and time-frames\nand cons i ders that they\ni nd i cated\noffer\nsustainable\ndevelopment ;\n\ni n the Programme ;\nbasis\n\ntowards\n\nmoving\n\nsound\n\nfor\n\na\n\n\fB\n\nnot\n\nbe attained within\n\nNOTES , that sustainability of activity and development\nthis\nwill\nProgramme and , consequently ,\nmore\nprogressive measures will probably be necessary beyond\nthe year 2000 in order to hand on the environment to the\nnext generation in a fit state to maintain public health\nand social and economic welfare at a high level ;\n\nthat further ,\n\nof\nstill\n\nlife-span\n\nthe\n\nNOTES , also , that while many of the measures and actions\nars set within a time-frame which extends to 2000 , and\neven beyond ,\nit is intended to undertake a review of the\nProgramme before the end of 1995 ;\n\nthat\nCONSIDERS\nmeasures\non\nimplemented ,. impi emented ,\nCommission\nComm i ss i on\n\nand\n\nin\n\norder\n\nto\nenvironment\n\nthe\ncooperation\ncoop\u00e9r\u00e2t i on\n\nthe Member\n\nensure\nare\nprocedures\nStates\n\nmore\n\nthat\n\nCommunity\neffectively\nthe\nfurther\n\nbetween\nbe\n\nshould\n\nimproved. Insofar\n\nas. environment\n\nand\n\ndevelopment\n\nat\n\nwider\n\nInternational\n\nlevel are concerned ,\n\nto\n\nthe\n\nsuccessful\n\npositively\n\nnegotiation\n\nASSERTS that the Communities will contribute actively\nand\nand\nimplementation of global strategies to deal with such\nproblems and\nissues as climate change , deforestation ,\nbiodiversity and energy and to programmes of sustainable\ndevelopment particularly in the developing countries and\nin the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the\nassociation\nframework\nagreements ;\n\nco-operation\n\ntheir\n\nand\n\nof\n\nProgramme\n\nNOTES that many of the i nterna I Commun i ty measures in\nthe -\nwasteful\ndesigned\nconsumption of resources and , thereby , will contribute\nto greater efficiency\nin resource management at wider\ninternational level ;\n\nreduce\n\nare\n\nto\n\n\f7\n\nLOOKS to the forthcoming United Nations Conference on\nEnvironment and Development to provide a framework for\nthe promotion of policies and programmes designed to\nimprove the quality of human life worldwide through more\nequitable distribution of natural resources , alleviation\nof poverty , food security and improved health standards\nand I\n\ni f e expectancy ;\n\nand ,\n\nIn the llght of\n\nthe foregolng\n\nSUBSCRIBES to the necessity for a programme of policy\nand action in relation to the environment designed to\nachieve a sustainable development path ;\n\nAPPROVES\nProgramme\nComm i ss i on ;\n\nthe\n\ngeneral\n\n\" Towards\n\napproach\nSustainability\u201d\n\nand\n\nstrategy\npresented\n\nof\nby\n\nthe\nthe\n\nINVITES the Commission to come forward with appropriate\nproposals to give effect to the Programme insofar as it\npertains to action at Community level ;\n\ndecide\n\nthe\nUNDERTAKES to\nCommission as expeditiously as possible so as to respect\nthe relevant objectives , targets and t ime-f rames. set out\nin the Programme ;\n\nsubmitted\n\nproposals\n\nby\n\non\n\non\n\nand\n\nall\n\nCommunity\n\nMember States ,\nCALLS\nenterprise\nrelative\ntheir\nto\nresponsibilities to protect the environment for this and\nin\nto\ngenerations\nfuture\nimplementing this Programme. Institutions ,\naccept\n\ncitizens\n\ntheir\n\npart\n\nplay\n\nfull\n\nand\n\n\fISSN 0254-1475\n\nCOM(92) 23/1 final\n\nDOCUMENTS\n\nEN\n\n01 14\n\nCatalogue number : CB-CO-92-148-EN-C\n\nISBN 92-77-42765-5\n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities\nL-2985 Luxembourg\n\n\fCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN CQMVTUNITIES\n\nCOM ( 92 ) 23\n\nfinal\n\nVOL. II\n\nBrasse I s , 27 March 1992\n\nTOWARDS\n\nSUSTAINABILITY\n\nA European Community Programme\nof Policy and Action in relation to\nthe Environment and Sustainable Development\n\nVOLUME II\n\n\fEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nIntroduction\n\n1. Over the past\n\ntwo decades four Community\naction programmes on the environment have\ngiven rise to about 200 pieces of\nlegislation\ncovering pollution of the atmosphere, water and\nsoil , waste management, safeguards in relation to\nchemicals and biotechnology, product standards,\nenvi ronmental impact assessments and protection\nofnature. The Community's 4th Action Programme\non the Environment has not been completed - it\nruns up to the end of 1 992 - and its impact will not\nbe known for some years to come. While a great\ndeal has been achieved under these programmes\nand measures, a combination of factors calls for a\nmore far-reaching policy and more effective\nstrategy at this juncture :\n\n(i)\n\na new Report on the State of the Environment\npublished in conjunction with this Programme\nindicates a slow but relentless deterioration of the\ngeneral state of the environment ofthe Community\nnotwithstanding the measures taken over the past\ntwo decades, particularly as respects the issues\nreferred to in para 16 below;\nthe Report also\nshows up significant deficiencies in the quantity,\nquality and comparabi lity of data which are crucial\nfor environment-related policies and decisions. In\nthis context it is of the utmost importance that the\nEuropean Environment Agency become\noperational. (ii)\n\nthe present approach and existing measures are\nnot geared to deal with the expected growth in\ninternational competition and the upward trends\nin Community activity and development which\nwill\nimpose even greater burdens on natural\nresources, the environment and, ultimately, the\nquality of life;\n\n(iii) global concerns about\n\nthe climate change /\ndeforestation / energy crisis, the seriousness and\npersistence of problems of underdevelopment\nand the progressof political and economic change\nin Central and Eastern Europe add to the\nresponsibility of the European Community in the\ninternational field. 2. The newTreatyon European Union, signed by all\nMember States on 7 February 1 992 has introduced\nas a principal objective the promotion of\nsustainable growth respecting the environment\n(Art 2). includes among the activities of the\nUnion a policy in the sphere of the environment\n(Art. 3 (k)), specifies that this policy must aim at a\nhigh level of protection and that environmental\n\nIt\n\nprotection requirements must be integrated into\nthe definition and implementation of other\nCommunity policies (Art. 1 30r. 2). ThenewTreaty\nalso attaches special value to the principle of\nsubsidiarity (Art. 3b), and states that decisions\nshould be taken as closely as possible to the\ncitizens (Art. A). Furthermore, the Community\npolicy on the envi ronment is requi red to contribute\nto promoting measures at\nlevel to\ndeal with regional or worldwide environmental\nIn this latter context the\nproblems (Art. 130r. l ). Community will endeavour to find solutions in\nthe field of development and environment at the\nUnited Nations Conference on Environment and\nDevelopment (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in June\n1992. international\n\nAll human activity has an impact on the biophysical\nworld and is, in turn , affected by it. The capacity\nto control\nthis interrelationship conditions the\ncontinuity, overtime, of different forms of activity\nand the potential\nfor economic and social\ndevelopment. Within the Community, the long\u00ac\ninitiatives\nterm success of the more important\nsuch as the Internal Market and economic and\nmonetary union will be dependent upon the\nsustainability of the policies pursued in the fields\ntransport, agriculture and\nof industry, energy,\nregional development; but each of these policies,\nwhether viewed separately or as it interfaces with\nothers,\nis dependent on the carrying capacity of\nthe environment\n\nThe achievement of the desired balance between\nhuman activity and development and protection\nrequires a sharing of\nof the environment\nresponsibilities which isboth equitable and clearly\ndefined by reference to consumption of and\nbehaviour towards the environment and natural\nresources. This implies integration of environment\nconsiderations in the formulation and\nimplementation ofeconomic and sectoral policies,\nin the decisions of public authorities, in theconduct\nand development of production processes and in\nIt also implies\nindividual behaviour and choice. effective dialogue and concerted action among\npartners who may have differing short-term\npriorities; such dialogue must be supported by\nobjective and reliable information. As usedinthe Programme, the word \"sustainable\"\nis intended to reflect a policy and strategy for\ncontinued economic and social development\nwithout detriment to the environment and the\nnatural resources on thequalityofwhich continued\nhuman activity and further development depend. The Report of the World Commission on\n( Brundtland)\nEnvironment and Development\n\n3. 4. 5. B\n\n\f9. defined sustainabledevelopment as \"development\nwhich meets the needs of the present without\ncompromising the ability of future generations to\nmeet their own needs*. It entails preserving the\noverall balance and value of the natural capital\nstock, redefinition of short, medium and long\u00ac\nterm cost/benefit evaluation criteria and\ninstruments to reflect the real socio-economic\neffects and values of consumption and\nconservation, and the equitable distribution and\nuse of resources between nations and regions\nover the world as a whole. In the latter context, the\nBrundtland Report pointed out thatthe developed\ncountries, with only 26 % of the world population,\nare responsible for about 80 % of world\nconsumption of energy, steel and other metals,\nand paper and about 40 % of the food. 6. Following are some of the practical requirements\nfor achieving sustainable development :\n\nsince the reservoir of raw materials is finite, the\nflow of substances through the various stages of\nprocessing, consumption and use should be so\nmanaged as to facilitate or encourage optimum\nreuse and recycling, thereby avoiding wastage\nand preventing depletion of the natural resource\nstock;\n\n10\n\nproduction and consumption of energy should be\nrationalized ; and\n\nconsumption and behaviour patterns of society\nitself should be altered. 7. 8. is clear that sustainable development\n\nIt\nis not\nsomething which will be achieved over a period\nas short as that covered by this Programme. 'Towards Sustainability\" should be seen ,\naccordingly,\nas an important step only in a\nlonger-term campaign to safeguard the\nlife of the\nenvironment and the quality of\nCommunity and, ultimately, our planet. The Community's Role in the Wider\nInternational Arena\n\nIn the early stages, Community policy and action\non the environment were mainly focussed on the\nsolution of particularly acute problems within the\nCommunity. Later there was a clearer recognition\nthat pollution did not stop at its frontiers and that\nto intensify co\u00ac\ntherefore,\nit was necessary,\noperation with third countries. In recent years, the\nevolution has gone a step further and it is now\ngenerally accepted that issues of a global nature -\nclimate change, ozone depletion, diminution of\n\n\u25a1\n\nbiodiversity, etc. ecological balance of our planet as a whole. - are seriously threatening the\n\nThese issues are to be addressed at the highest\nthe United Nations Conference on\nlevel at\nEnvironment and Development(UNCED). Just as\nthe 1 972 UN Conference in Stockholm created a\nnew awareness and concern about\nthe\nlevel , so too\nenvironment at broad international\ncan UNCED bring global political will and\ncommitment\nto effective action into a new\ndimension. Apart from the expected adoption of\nframework conventions on climate change and\nbiodiversity and of principles on conservation\nand development of forests, UNCED should pave\nthe way forward by adopting :\n\n* An \u201c Earth Charter* or Declaration of basic rights\nand obligations with respect to environment\nand development;\n\n* An agenda for action , \u201cAgenda 21\u201d , which will\nconstitute an agreed work programme of the\ninternational community for the period beyond\n1 992 and into the 21 st century. In the declaration on the environment made in\nDublin in June 1 990the European Council stressed\nthe special responsibility of the Community and\nits constituent Member States in the wider\ninternational arena when\nit stated that \u201c the\nCommunity must use more effectively its position\nof moral, economic and political authority to\nadvance international efforts to solve global\nproblems andtopromote sustainable development\nandrespect (or theglobal commons\". In conformity\nwith the said declaration, the Community and the\nefforts to\nMember States must\npromote international action to protect\nthe\nenvironment and to meet the specific needs and\nrequirements of its partners in the developing\nworld and in Central and Eastern Europe. increase their\n\nThe credibility of the industrialised world ,\nincluding the Community, from the viewpoint of\ndeveloping countries will be commensurate with\nthe extent to which it puts its own house in order. In adopting and implementing this Programme,\nthe Community will be in a position to offer the\nleadership foreseen in the Dublin Declaration. The New Strategy for Environment\nand Development\n\n1 1 The approach adopted in drawing up this new\npolicy programme differs from that which applied\nin previous environmental action programmes :\n\n\f*\n\n\u2022\n\n\u2022\n\n*\n\nIt\nfocuses on the agents and activities which\ndeplete natural resources and otherwise damage\nthe environment, rather than wait for problems to\nemerge;\n\n14\n\nIt endeavours to initiate changes in current trends\nand practices which are detrimental\nto the\nenvironment, so as to provide optimal conditions\nfor socio-economic well -being and growth for the\npresent and future generations;\n\nThe success of this approach will rely heavily on\nthe flow and quality of information both in relation\nto the environment and as between the various\nactors, including the general public. The rdle of\nthe European Environment Agency is seen as\ncrucial\nin relation to the evaluation and\ndissemination ofinformation, distinction between\nreal and perceived risks and provision of a scientific\nand rational basis for decisions and actions\naffecting the environment and natural resources. It aims to achieve such changes i n society's patterns\nof behaviour through the optimum involvement\nof all sectors of society in a spirit of shared\nresponsibility,\nincluding public administration,\npublic and private enterprise, and the general\npublic (as both individual citizens and consumers);\n\n15\n\nIn relation to the motivation of the general public,\nthe main tasks will fall to levels other than the\nCommunity level. The Commission , for its part,\nwill commit its information services to a campaign\nof environmental\ninformation and awareness\u00ac\nbuilding. Responsibility will be shared through a significant\nbroadening of the range of instruments to be\napplied contemporaneously to the resolution of\nparticular issues or problems;\n\nThe importance of education in the development\nof environmental awareness cannot be overstated\nand should be an integral element\nin school\ncurricula from primary level onwards. 1 2 For each of the main issues, iong-term objectives\nare given as an indication of the sense of direction\nor thrust to be applied in the pursuit of sustainable\ndevelopment, certain performance targets are\nindicated for the period up to the year 2000 and\na representative selection of actions is prescribed\nwith a view to achieving the said targets. These\nobjectives and targets do not constitute legal\ncommitments but, rather, performance levels or\nachievements to be aimed at now in the interests\nof attaining a sustainable development path. Neither should all the actions indicated require\nlegislation at Community or national level. (Note:\nsubstantial disparities and short\u00ac\nBecause of\ncomings in both the quantity and quality of data\navailable,\nnot been possible to have\nhomogenous levels of precision in the objectives\nand targets included in the Programme). it has\n\nEnvironmental Challenges\nPriorities\n\nand\n\n16\n\nThe Programme addresses a number of\nissues : climate change ,\nenvironmental\nacidification and air pollution , depletion of natural\nresources and biodiversity, depletion and pollution\nof water resources, deterioration of\nthe urban\nenvironment, deterioration of coastal zones, and\nis not an exhaustive one but,\nwaste. This list\npursuant\nit\ncomprises matters of particular seriousness which\nhave a Community-wide dimension , either\nbecause of Internal Market, cross-boundary, shared\nresource or cohesion implications and because\nthey have a crucial bearing on environmental\nquality and conditions in almost all regionsof the\nCommunity. to the principle of subsidiarity,\n\n1 3 The Programme takes account of the diversity of\nsituations in various regions of the Community\nand, in particular, of the need for the economic\nand social development ofthe less wealthy regions\nof the Community. It aims to protect and enhance\nthe inherent advantages ofthese latter regions and\nto afford protection to their more valuable natural\nassets as a resource-base for economic\ndevelopment and social\nimprovement and\nIn the case of the more developed\nprosperity. regions of the Community, the aim is to restore or\nmaintain the quality of their environment and\nnatural resource base for thei r continued economic\nactivity and quality of life. 17\n\nThese issues are addressed not so much as\nproblems, but as symptoms of mismanagement\nand abuse. The real\n\"problems\", which cause\nenvironmental loss and damage, are the current\npatterns of human consumption and behaviour. Withthisdistinction in mind and with due respect\nto the principle of subsidiarity, priority will be\ngiven to the following fields of action with a view\nto achieving tangible improvements or changes\nduring the period covered by the Programme :\n\n* Sustainable Management ofNatural Resources:\nsoil , water, natural areas and coastal zones\n\n\u0428\n\n\f* Integrated Pollution Control and Prevention of\n\nthe Internal Market. Waste\n\n* Reduction in the Consumption of Non-\n\nRenewable Energy\n\n20. The three pillars on which the environment/\nindustry relationship will be based will be :\n\n* ImprovedMobilityManagemenfincludingmore\nefficient and environmentally rational location\ndecisions and transport modes\n\n* Improved resource management with a view to\nboth rational use of resources and improvement\nof competitive position ;\n\n* Coherent packages of measures to achieve\nimprovements in environmental quality in urban\nareas;\n\n* Improvement ofPublic Health and Safety, with\nspecial emphasis on industrial risk assessment\nand management, nuclear safety and radiation\nprotection. Selected Target Sectors\n\n18. Five target sectors have been selected for special\nINDUSTRY,\nattention under this Programme :\nENERGY , TRANSPORT, AGRICULTURE and\nTOURISM. These are sectors where the\nCommunity as such has a unique role to play and\nwhere a Community approach is the most efficient\nlevel at which to tackle the problems these sectors\ncause or face. They are a Iso chosen because of the\nparticularly significant impacts that they have or\ncould have on the environment as a whole and\nbecause, by their nature, they have crucial roles to\nplay in the attempt\nto achieve sustainable\ndevelopment. The approach to the target sectors\nis designed not only for the protection of public\nhealth and the environment as such, but for the\nbenefit and sustainability ofthe sectorsthemselves. Industry :\n\n1 9. Whereas previousenvironmental measures tended\nto be proscriptive in character with an emphasis\non the \"thou shalt not* approach, the new strategy\nleans more towards a \"let's work together*\napproach. This reflects the growing realization in\nindustry and in the business world that not only is\nindustry a significant part of the (environmental )\nproblem but it must also be part of the solution. in particular, a\nThe new approach implies,\nreinforcement of the dialogue with industry and\nthe encouragement, in appropriate circumstances,\nof voluntary agreements and other forms of self\u00ac\nregulation. Nevertheless, Community action is and will\ncontinue to be an important element\nin the\navoidance of distortions in conditions of\ncompetition and preservation of the integrity of\n\n* Use of information for promotion of better\nconsumer choice and for i mprovement of public\nconfidence in industrial activity and controls\nand in the quality of products;\n\n* Community standards for production processes\n\nand products;\n\nIn developing measures toensure the sustainability\nof the industrial sector, special consideration will\nbe given to the position of small and medium\nenterprises and to the matter of international\ncompetitiveness. In mid-1992 the Commission will publish a\ncomprehensive Communication on international\ncompetitiveness and protection of\nthe\nenvironment. Energy :\n\n21. Energy policy is a key factor in the achievement of\nsustainable development. While the Community's\nenergy sector is making steady progress in deal ing\nwith local and regional environmental problems\nsuch as acidification, global\nissues are daily\ngrowing in importance. The challenge of the\nfuture will be to ensure that economic growth,\nefficient and secure energy supplies and a clean\nenvironment are compatible objectives. 22. The achievement of this balance\n\nrequires a\nstrategic perspective well beyond the period\ncovered by this Programme. The key elements of\nthe strategy up to 2000 will be improvement in\nenergy efficiency and the development ofstrategic\ntechnology programmes moving towards a less\ncarbon-intensive energy structure including,\nin\nparticular, renewable energy options. Transport :\n\n23. Transport is vital to the distribution of goods and\nservices, to trade and to regional development. Present trends in theCommunity'stransport sector\nare all\ngreater inefficiency,\ncongestion , pollution , wastage of time and value,\ndamage to health, danger to life and general\neconomic loss. Transport demand and traffic are\n\nleading towards\n\n\u25a1\n\n\fexpected to increase even more rapidly with the\ncompletion ofthe Internal Market and the political\nand economic developments in Central and Eastern\nEurope. 24. A strategy for sustainable mobility will require a\ncombination of measures which includes :\n\n* improved land-use/economic development\nplanning at local , regional , national and trans\u00ac\nnational\n\nlevels;\n\n* improved planning, management and use of\ntransport\ninfrastructures and facilities ;\nincorporation of the real costs of both\ninfrastructure and environment in investment\npolicies and decisions and also in user costs;\n\n(both as regards agricultural products and wider\ntrade agreements). It is not only environmentally\ndesirable,\ntherefore, but also makes sound\nagricultural , social and economic sense to seek to\nstrike a more sustainable balance between\nagricultural activity, other forms of rural\ndevelopment and the natural\nresources of the\nenvironment. 27. The Programme builds on the Commission's\nproposals for reform of\nthe CAP and for\ndevelopment of the Community's forests so as to\nwork towards a balanced and dynamic\ndevelopment of the rural areas of the Community\nwhich will meet the sector's productive, social\nand environmental functions. * development of public transport and\n\nTourism :\n\nimprovement of its competitive position;\n\n* continued technical\n\nimprovement of vehicles\nand fuels; encouraged use of less polluting\nfuels;\n\n* promotion of a more environmentally rational\nincluding changes in\n\nuse of the private car,\ndriving rules and habits. In conjunction with this Programme ,\nthe\nCommission has published a more comprehensive\nCommunication dealing with transport and the\nenvironment and the need to aim for sustainable\nmobility. Agriculture :\n\n25. The farmer is the guardian of the soil and of the\ncountryside. Improvements in farming efficiency,\nimproved\nincreased mechanisation levels,\ntransport and marketing arrangements, increased\ninternational trade in food produas and feedstuffs\nhave all contributed tothe fulfillment ofthe original\nTreaty objeaives of assuring the availability of\nfood supplies at reasonable prices, the stabilization\nof markets and a fair standard of living for the\nagricultural community. At\nthe same time,\nhowever, changes in farming praaices in many\nled to\nregions of\noverexploitation and degradation of the natural\nresources on which agriculture itself ultimately\ndepends : soil , water and air. the Community have\n\n26. In addition to environmental degradation , serious\nproblems have emerged in the case of commodity\noverproduction and storage, rural depopulation,\ntrade\nthe Community budget and international\n\n28. Tourism is an important element in the social and\neconomic life of the Community. It refleas the\nlegitimate aspirations of the individual to enjoy\nnew places and absorb different cultures as well\nas to benefit from activities or relaxation away\nfrom the normal home or work setting. It is also an\nimportant economic asset to many regions and\ncities of the Community and has a special\ncontribution to make to the economic and social\nregions. Tourism\ncohesion of the peripheral\nrepresents a good example of the fundamental\nlink which exists between economic development\nand environment, with all the attendant benefits,\ntensions and potential conflias. If well planned\nand managed, tourism, regional development and\nenvironment proteaion can go hand in hand. Respect\nfor nature and the environment ,\nparticularly in coastal zones and mountain areas,\ncan maketourism both profitable and long-lasting. 29. The World Tourism Organisation predias\n\na\nsignificant\nincrease in tourism aaivity to and\nwithin Europe during this decade. Most of this\nincrease is I i kely to take pi ace i n the Mediterranean\nRegion, and in particular types of locations such\nas historic towns and cities, mountain areas and\ncoastal zones. UNEP 's Blue Plan on the\nMediterranean predicts a doubling, at least, of\nsolid wastes and waste waters resulting from\ntourism by the year 2000, and a potential doubl ing\nin the land occupied by tourist lodgings. 30. The European Community supports tourism\nthrough its i nvestments i n necessa ry i nfrastruaures;\nit can also serve as a \"facilitator'\nin relation to\nother interests. But, in a praaical refleaion ofthe\nprinciple of subsidiarity and the spirit of shared\nresponsibility, it is mainly at levels other than that\n\n\u25a1\n\n\fofthe Community that the real work of reconciling\ntourism activity and development and the\nguardianship of natural and cultural assets must\nbe brought\ni. e. by\nMember States, regional and local authorities, the\ntourism industry itself and individual tourists. into a sustainable balance,\n\nThe three main lines of action indicated in the\nProgramme deal with\n\n\u2022 diversification of tourism activities,\n\nincluding\nbetter management ofthe phenomenon of mass\ntourism, and encouragement of different types\nof tourism;\n\n\u2022 qualityoftourist services, including information\nand awareness- building, and visitor\nmanagement and facilities;\n\n\u2022 tourist behaviour, including media campaigns,\ncodes of behaviour and choice of transport. Broadening the Range of Instru\u00ac\nments\n\n31. Previous action programmes have relied almost\nexclusively on legislative measures. In order to\nbring about substantial changes in current trends\nand practices and to involve all sectors of society\nin a full sharing of responsibility, a broader mix of\ninstruments is needed. The mix proposed can be\ncategorised under four headings :\n\n(i)\n\nLegislative instrumentsdesigped to set fundamental\nlevels of protection for public health and the\nenvironment,. particularly in cases of high risk, to\nimplement wider international commitments and\nto provide Community-wide rules and standards\nnecessary to preserve the integrity of the Internal\nMarket;\n\n(ii) Market-based instruments, designed to sensitize\nboth producers and consumers towards\nresponsible use of natural resources, avoidance of\npollution and waste by internalising of external\nenvironmental costs (through the application of\neconomic and fiscal incentives and disincentives,\ncivil\nliability, etc) and geared towards \"getting\nthe prices right\" so that environmentally-friendly\ngoods and services are not at a ma rket d i sadvantage\nvis-^-vis polluting or wasteful competitors. (iii) Horizontal, supporting instruments including\nimproved base-line and statistical data, scientific\n(as\nresearch and technological development,\nrespects both new less-pollutingtechnologiesand\ntechnologies and techniques for solving current\nenvironmental problems)\nimproved sectoral and\nspatial planning, public/consumer information\n\n0\n\nand education and professional and vocational\neducation and training. ( iv) Financial support mechanisms : besides the\nbudgetary lines which have direct environmental\nobjectives, such as LIFE,\nthe Structural Funds,\nnotably ENVIREG, contribute significant amounts\nto the financing of actions for the improvement of\nthe environment. Moreover, the new Cohesion\nFund decided upon at\nthe Maastricht Summit\naims at cofinancing projects which are intended\nto improve the environment\nin Spain , Greece,\nPortugal and Ireland. Article 1 30r. 2 of the new\nTreaty provides that environment policy must aim\nat a high level of protection based on the\nprecautionary principle and preventive action,\ntaking into account the diversity of situations in\nthe various regions of the Community, and that\nenvironment policy must be integrated into the\ndefinition and implementation ofother Community\npolicies. it will be necessary to\nensure that all Community funding operations,\nand in particular, these involving the Structural\nFunds, will be as sensitive as possible to\nenvironmental considerations and in conformity\nlegislation. By way of\nwith environmental\nqualification it must be recalled here that the new\nTreaty provides,\nthat without\nprejudice to certain measures of a Community\nthe Member States are responsible for\nnature,\nfinancing and implementing environment policy. In this context,\n\nin Art 130s. 4,\n\nThe Principle of Subsidiarity\n\n32. The principleofsubsidiarity will pi ay an important\npart in ensuring that the objectives, targets and\nactions are given full effect by appropriate national ,\nregional and local efforts and initiatives. In practice\nit should serve to take full account of the traditions\nand sensitivities of different\nthe\nCommunity and the cost-effectiveness of various\nactions and to improve the choice of actions and\nappropriate mixes of instruments at Community\nand/or other levels. regions of\n\nThe objectives and targets put forward in the\nProgramme and the ultimate goal of sustainable\ndevelopment can only be achieved by concerted\naction on the part of all the relevant actors working\ntogether in partnership. On the basis ofthe Treaty\non the European Union (Art. 3b), the Community\nwill take action, in accordance with the principle\nof subsidiarity, only if and insofar as the objectives\nof the proposed action cannot be sufficiently\nachieved by the Member States and can therefore,\nby reason of the scale or effects of proposed\naction, be better achieved by the Community. 33. The Programme combines the principle of\nsubsidiarity with the wider concept of shared\nresponsibility; this concept involves not so much\na choice of action at one level to the exclusion of\nrather, a mixing of actors and\nothers but,\ninstruments at the appropriate levels, without any\nca 1 1 ing into question ofthe division of competences\nbetween the Community,\nthe Member States,\nregional and local authorities. and experience and at the development of common\napproaches at practical level , under the supervision\nof the Commission. ( iii) an Environmental Policy Review Croup,\ncomprising representatives of the Commission\nand the Member States at Director-General\nlevel\nto develop mutual understanding and exchange\nof views on environment policy and measures. Table 1 8 ofthe document and the \"actors\" column\noftheothertablesindicaterespectivelythemanner\ninwhichthevariousactorsareintendedtocombine\nand the different actors considered most relevant\nfor the implementation of specific measures. Making the Programme Work\n\n34. Uptothe present, environmental protection in the\nCommunity has mainly been based on a legislative\napproach (\"top-down \"). The new strategy\nadvanced in this Programme implies the\ninvolvement of all economic and social partners\nThe complementarity and\n(\" bottom-up\"). effectiveness of the two approaches together will\ndepend, in great measure, on the level and quality\nof dialogue which will take place in pursuance of\npartnership. 35. Inevitably, it will take some considerable time for\nthe current patterns of consumption and behaviour\nto turn inthedirection of sustainability. In practical\nterms, the effectiveness ofthe strategy wil I depend ,\nfor the foreseeable future, on the inherent quality\nof the measures adopted and the practical\narrangements for their enforcement. This will\nrequire better preparation of measures, more\neffective co-ordination with and integration into\nother policies, more systematic follow-up and\nstricter compliance-checking and enforcement. 36. For these reasons - but without prejudice to the\ninitiative and its\nCommission 's right of\nsatisfactory\nresponsibility\nsatisfactory\nthe\nimplementation of Community rules -\nfollowingad hoc dialogue groups wil I be convened\nby the Commission :\n\nto ensure\nto ensure\n\n(i)\n\na General Consultative Forum comprising\nrepresentatives of enterprise, consumers, unions\nand professional organisations, non-governmental\norganisations and local and regional authorities;\n\n(ii ) an Implementation Network comprising\nrepresentatives of relevant national authorities\nand of the Commission in the field of practical\nimplementation with Community measures;\nit\nwill beaimed primarilyat exchange of information\n\n37. These three dialogue groups will\n\nserve,\n\nin a\nspecial way,\nto promote greater sense of\nto promote greater sense of\nspecial way,\nresponsibility among the principal actors in the\nresponsibility among the principal actors in the\npartenariat, and toensure effective and transparent\npartenariat, and toensure effective and transparent\napplication of measures. They are not intended to\napplication of measures. They are not intended to\nduplicate the work of committees established by\nCommunity legislation for the purposes of follow\u00ac\nup in respect of specific measures,nor by the\nCommission in relation to specific fields of interest\nsuch as\ntourism\nconsumer protection ,\ndevelopment etc. nor by Member States for\nimplementation and enforcement of policy at\nnational level. Finally, they will not substitute the\nexisting dialogue between industry and the\nCommission, which it is intended to strengthen in\nany event. Review of Programme\n\nis essentially targeted\n38. While the Programme\ntowards the year 2000,\nit will be reviewed and\n\" rolled-over\" at the end of 1995 in the light of\nimprovements in relevant data, results of current\nresearch , and forthcoming reviews of other\nCommunity policies e. g. industry, energy,\ntransport, agriculture, and the structural funds. Conclusion\n\n39. This Programme itself constitutes a turning point\nfor the Community. Just as the challenge of the\n1 980s was completion of the Internal Market, the\nreconciliation of environment and development\nis one of the principal challenges facing the\nCommunity and the world at large in the 1 990s. \"Towards Sustainability\" is not a programme for\nthe Commission alone, nor one geared towards\nenvironmentalists alone. It provides a framework\nfor a new approach to the environment and to\neconomic and social activity and development,\nlevels of the\nand requires positive will at all\npolitical and corporate spectrums, and the\ninvolvement of all members of the public active\nas citizens and consumers in order to make it\nwork. 0\n\n\f40. The Programme does not purport to \"get everything\nright\". It will take a long time to change patterns\nof behaviour and consumption and to attain a\nsustainable development path. The Programme,\naccordingly,\nis intended primarily to break the\ncurrent trends. The bottom line is that the present\ngeneration must pass the environment on to the\nnext generation in a fit state to maintain public\nhealth and social and economic welfare at a high\nlevel. As an intermediate goal , the state of the\nenvironment,\nthe level and quality of natural\nresources and the potential for further development\nat the end of this decade should reflea a marked\nimprovement on the situation which obtainstoday. The road to sustainability may be long and\ndifficult. but the first steps must be taken NOW!\n\nStructure of the Document\n\n41. The document is divided into three parts, the two\nmain parts being related to internal and external\naaions. This distinaion is made so as to reflea\nwhat can politically and legally be done within\nthe Community itself\nin accordance with the\npowers and procedures incorporated in the\nTreaties, and what\nthe Community and its\nconstituent Member States can contribute or\nachieve in partnership with other developed and\ndeveloping countries in relation to global or\nregional issues and problems. 42. Part I summarises the state of the environment in\nthe Community and growing threats to its future\nhealth (Ch. 1 ) and sets out a new strategy designed\nto break the current trends and to set a new course\nfor sustainable development (Ch. 2). The strategy\nentails aaive involvement of all the main aaors in\nsociety (Ch. 3) using a broader range of instruments,\nincluding market-related instruments and\nimproved information, education and training\n(Ch. 7) so as to achieve identifiable orquantiflable\nimprovements in the environment or changes in\nconsumption and behaviour (Ch. 5). 43. A special, concentrated, effort will be made in the\ncase of five target seaors of Community-wide\nsignificance (Ch. 4) and in relation to the avoidance\nand management of risks and accidents (Ch. 6). 44. In an effort to be both concise and as clear as\npossible, the measures which together constitute\nthe aaion programme are set out in a series of\nthough not\ntables which are predominantly,\nentirely, homogenous. These tables are struaured so as to indicate :\n\n* the long-term objeaives in the various fields;\n* the qualitative or quantitative targets to be\n\nattained by the year 2000;\n\n* the specific aaions required to be taken;\n* the time-frame proposed for such aaions;\n* the aaors or seaors of aaivity which will be\n\ncalled upon to play a part. Pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, the lead\nr6le is indicated by the use of an italic type-face\ne. g. MS. 45. Finally , Part\n\nI attempts to indicate how\nresponsibility can in praaice be shared (Ch. 8)\nand the measures proposed to ensure satisfaaory\nimplementation and enforcement (Ch. 9). 46. Part II summarises the environmental threats and\nissues in the wider international sphere (Ch. 10)\nand what will or can be done by the Community\nand its constituent Member States in the context of\ninternational and bilateral co\u00ac\nboth general\noperation (Ch. 11 and 12, resp. )\nin relation to\nglobal and regional\nissues and to environment\nand development issues in developing countries\nand Central and Eastern Europe. Chapter 1 3 deals\nwith the United Nations Conference on\nEnvironment and Development which will take\nplace in June 1 992. It also refers to the correlation\nbetween the internal and external dimensions of\nthe Community's policy on the environment. 47. Partlll is quite short and very general , dealing with\nthe seleaion of priorities (Ch. 1 4), the question of\ncosts (Ch. 1 5) and the intention to carry out a mid\u00ac\nterm review of the Programme in 1995 (Ch. 16). While in a document which puts forward a policy\nand strategy aimed at breaking trends there is less\na question ofseleaing priority aaions than defining\na \"critical path \", nevertheless, the Programme does\ninclude a listing of horizontal measures and fields\nof aaion which require to be accorded priority. On the question of costs the document points to\nthedifficultiesof undertaking such exercise (partly\nbecause of the traditional praaice of treating the\nenvironment as an infinite source of free raw\nmaterials and waste sinks, and partly because not\nenough has been done to determine the real costs\nof \"non-action *) and puts forward a 5-point plan\nto devise appropriate costing mechanims for the\nfuture. 10\n\n\fCONTENTS\n\nExecutive Summary\n\nIntroduction: The Challenge of the \"90s\"\n\nPART I : A Policy and Strategy for the Environment and Sustainable\nDevelopment within the European Community\nThe State of the Environment : Progress and Prospects\n\n1. 2. The Fifth Programme: A New Strategy for the Environment and\nSustainable Development\n\n3. The Actors :\n\n3. 1 Public Authorities\n3. 2 Public and Private Enterprise\n3. 3 The General Public\n\n4. Selected Target Sectors :\n\n4. 1 Industry\n4. 2 Energy\n4. 3 Transport\n4. 4 Agriculture\n4. 5 Tourism\n\n5. Th\u00e8mes and Targets of the Programme\n\n5. 1 Climate Change\n5. 2 Acidification and Air Quality\n5. 3 Protection of Nature and Bio-diversity\n5. 4 Management of Water Resources\n5. 5 The Urban Environment\n5. 6 Coastal Zones\n5. 7 Waste Management\n\n6. Management of Risks and Accidents :\n\n6. 1 Industry-Related Risks\n6. 2 Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection\n6. 3 Civil Protection and Environmental Emergencies\n\n7. 8. 9. Broadening the Range of Instruments :\n7. 1 Improvement of Environmental Data\n7. 2 Scientific Research and Technological Development\n7. 3 Sectoral and spatial planning\n7. 4 The economic approach : getting the prices right\n7. 5 Public information and \u00e9ducation\n7. 6 Professional \u00e9ducation and training\n7. 7 Financial support mechanisms\n\nSubsidiarity and Shared Responsibility\n\nImplementation and Enforcement of the Programme within the\nCommunity\n\nPage\n\n3\n\n15\n\n21\n\n23\n\n25\n\n26\n\n26\n\n27\n\n27\n\n28\n\n28\n\n31\n\n33\n\n35\n\n38\n\n41\n\n41\n\n43\n\n47\n\n49\n\n51\n\n53\n\n54\n\n57\n\n57\n\n60\n\n63\n\n64\n\n64\n\n65\n\n66\n\n67\n\n68\n69\n70\n\n73\n\n75\n\n0\n\n\fPART II : The Communities' Role in the Wider International Arena\n\nIntroduction\n\n10. Environmental Threats and Issues\n\n10. 1 Global Issues\n1 0. 2 Problems of Regional or Local Concern\n\n11. International Co-operation\n\n11. 1 The Community's Position on the Major Issues\n1 1. 2 Other Priority Issues of Major International Importance\n1 1. 3 Global Partnership\n1 1. 4 R\u00e9gional Co-operation\n1 1. 5 Institutional Issues\n\n12. Bilateral Co-operation\n\n12. 1 Developing Countries\n12. 2 Central and Eastem Europe\n\n13. UNCED: The United Nations' Conference on Environment and\n\nDevelopment\n\nPART III : Priorities, Costs, Review\n\n14. S\u00e9lection of Priorities\n\n15. The Question of Costs\n\n1 6. Review of the Programme\n\nConclusion\n\n79\n\n81\n\n82\n\n82\n\n82\n\n84\n\n84\n\n85\n85\n\n86\n\n86\n\n87\n\n87\n89\n\n92\n\n93\n\n95\n\n96\n\n97\n\n98\n\n\fTables\n\nEnergy consumption projections for 201 0 and their implications\nEnergy (Measures required up to 2000)\nTransport (Objectives, measures and instruments)\nAgriculture and Forestry (Objectives, measures and instruments)\nTourism (Objectives, measures and instruments)\nProgramme framework for selected target sectors\nClimate change (Objectives, targets and measures up to 2000)\nAcidification (idem)\nAir quality (idem)\n\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n1 0 Nature and biodiversity (idem)\n1 1 Water quantity and water quality (idem)\n12 Noise ( idem)\n1 3 Coastal areas (idem)\n1 4 Waste management (idem)\n1 5 Kisk management (idem)\n16 Nuclear safety (idem)\n17 Horizontal measures ( idem)\n1 8 Examples of Shared Responsibility\n1 9\n\nInternational environmental issues (Objectives, targets measures up to 2000)\n\nSustainable development\n\nFigures\n1\n1\n2a. A Regulatory Process to promote environmentally friendly and competitive industry\n2b. The potential of Consumer Power to influence manufacturing processes and products\nAcidification in the European Community 1 990\n3\nAcidification in the European Community 2010: Conventional Wisdom scenario\n4\nAcidification in the European Community 2010: High Prices scenario\n5\nNature Conservation ( Diagram)\n6\n7\nUrban Environment (Diagram)\n8 Waste Management ( Diagram)\nExisting Chemicals ( Diagram)\n9\n10 Acidification in Europe 1990\n1 1 Acidification in Europe 2000\n\nPage\n32\n33\n35\n37\n39\n40\n42\n46\n46\n48\n50\n51\n53\n56\n59\n62\n72\n74\n91\n\nPage\n\n24\n\n30\n\n30\n\n42\n\n44\n\n44\n\n47\n\n52\n\n55\n\n58\n\n88\n\n88\n\n13\n\n\fList of Abbreviations Used\n\nOrganisations, Associations etc. ACP\n\nAfrican , Caribbean and Pacific countries\n\nALA\nALA\n\nAsian and Latin American countries\n\nBest available technology\n\nBAT\n\nCAP\n\nEuropean\nAgricultural Policy\n\nCommunity 's\n\nCommon\n\nRIVM\n\nCEE\n\nCentral and Eastern European countries\n\nCITES\n\nConvention on International Trade in\nEndangered SpeciesofWild Fauna and Flora\n\nEAGGF European Agricultura ! Guidance and\n\nGuarantee Fund\n\nOECD\n\nOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and\nDevelopment\n\nPHARE A programme of Assistance for the\nrestructuring of the Economies of Poland\nand Hungary, initially, and now extended to\nother Central and Eastern European countries\n\nR & D\n\nResearch and Development\n\n(Maps) Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en\nMilieuhygiene (National Instituteof Public Health\nand Environmental Protection, The Netherlands)\n\nSME\nSME\n\nSmall and Medium-sized Enterprises\n\ntoe\ntoe\n\nUN\nUN\n\ntons of oil \u00e9quivalent\n\nUnited Nations Organisation\n\nEC\n\nECU\n\nEEA\n\n(Tables) refers to action at Community level\n\nUNCED United Nations Conf\u00e9rence on Environment\nand Development ( Riode Janeiro, June 1992)\n\nEuropean Currency Unit\n\n(Tables) European Environment Agency\n\nUNDP\n\nUnited Nations Development Programme\n\nUNDRO United Nations Disaster and Relief\n\nEFTA\n\nEuropean Free Trade Association\n\nOrganisation\n\nEIA\n\nEIB\n\nEnvironmental Impact Assessment\n\nUN-ECE United Nations Economie Commission for Europe\n\nEuropean Investment Bank\n\nUNEP\n\nUnited Nations Environment Programme\n\nERDF\n\nEuropean Regional Development Fund\n\nWHO World Health Organisation\n\nESF\n\nFAO\n\nEuropean Social Fund\n\nFood and Agricultural Organisation\n\nGATT\n\nGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade\n\nGDP\n\nGross Domestic Product\n\nGEF\n\nGlobal Environment Facility\n\nIIASA\n\nInternational\nAnalysis (Austria)\n\nInstitute for Applied Systems\n\nIMO\n\nInternational Maritime Organisation\n\nIPC\n\nIntegrated Pollution Control\n\nIPCC\n\nIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\n\nLA\nLA\n\n(Tables) refers to actions at Local and Regional\nAuthority Level\n\nleq dB(A) Mean Sound level related to man\n\nMS\nMS\n\n(Tables ) refers to actions at Member State level\n\nNGO\n\nNon Governmental Organisation\n\nChemical Formulae and References\n\nCO\n\nCarbon Monoxide\n\nco2\n\nCFC\n\n\u0441\u043d4\n\nCarbon Dioxide\n\nChlorofluorocarbon\n\nMethane\n\nGMO\n\nGenetically Modified Organism\n\n\u041d\u0421\n\n\u039d2\u039f\n\nNOj\n\nNOx\n\nNH 3\n\nO,\n\nso2\n\nHydrocarbon\n\nNitrous Oxide\n\nNitrogen Dioxide\n\nNitrogen Oxides\n\nAmmonia\n\nOzone\n\nSulphur Dioxide\n\nvoc\n\nVolatile Organic Compound\n\n14\n\n\fINTRODUCTION\n\n15\n\n\fThe Challenge of the 1990s\n\nAs far back as 1972 , when the Communities first\nthe\nbecame involved in environmental protection ,\nHeads of State and Government of the Member States\ndeclared that :\ndeclared that :\n\n\"Economic expansion is not an end in itself. it should\nresult in an improvement in the quality of life as well\nas the standard of living\"\n\nhavetofaceuptothechallengesoffurtherenlargement. It will have to take account of political and economic\nchanges which are occurring in Central and Eastern\nEurope and of the need to develop the European\nEurope and of the need to develop the European\nEconomic Area. The Community is also committed to\nthe\nreviewing its approach to the Structural Funds,\nCommon Agricultural Policy, Transport Policy and\nEnergy Policy. Energy Policy. Just as in the 1 980s the principal challenge faced by\nthe European Communities was the completion of the Developments at Global level\nInternal Market, so now in the 1 990s the challenge is\nto graduate to a development path which will be\nsustainable. Community HeadsofStateandGovernmentrecognised\nthis challenge during their Summit in Dublin in June\n1990 where they stated :\n\n\"We recognise our special responsibility for the\nenvironment both to our own citizens and to the wider\nworld. We undertake to intensify our efforts to protect\nandenhance the naturalenvironmentofthe Community\nitself and the world of which it is part. We intend that\naction by the Community and its Member States will be\ndevelopedona coordinated basis and on the principles\nof sustainable development and preventive and\nprecautionary action. The objective of such action\nmust be to guarantee citizens the right to a clean and\nhealthy environment. The full achievement of this\nobjective must be a shared responsibility. \"\n\nThere is growing worldwide concern at the continuing\ndeterioration of the state of the environment and the\nlife-support systems. A\nserious degradation of global\ncrucial element of the Community's strategy for the\n1 990s, developed in more detail in this document,\nis\nto promote policies and programmes that will improve\nthe quality of human life worldwide through a more\nequitable distribution of natural resources. The drive to raise iivmg standards, alleviate poverty,\nincrease life expectancy and improve food security\nplaces a considerable burden on the world 's natural\nresource base. The Community is conscious of the faa\nthat, along with other industrialised countries, its own\n340 million inhabitants currently consume a\ndisproportionate share of the world's resources. Per\ncapita consumption of energy in the Community for\nexample, although half that of the USA and Canada, is\nover 1 0 times greater than that of many developing\ncountries. Achild born in the Community will consume\nover 20 times as much of natural resources over its\nlifetime as a child born in the majority of developing\nntetime as a cnna Dorn in tne majority or developing\ncountriesfalthough still halfthatofan American child). Tho\nnf \u2018ttato anH c~/wpmmpnt wpnt nn tr> act thp\nThe Heads of State and Government went on to ask the\nCommission to take account of this approach in its\npreparation of the Fifth Action Programme on the\nEnvironment. This document is the response to that\nrequest and is designed to spell out a strategy and Many of the measures foreseen in this Programme are\ndesigned to reduce wasteful consumption of resources\nprogramme for environmental action to the end of the\nand to increase productivity within the Community. It\npresent century and beyond. will nevertheless require great ingenuity and creativity\nto service the additional needs of both the developed\nDevelopments within the Community -\"K'' \u201cwS\nDevelopments within the Community\nimply in some instances\nWithinthetime-frameofthisProgrammegreat changes\nresource base. This will\nprofound changes in consumption patterns and\nare envisaged. Development of the Internal Market in\nEurope and the need to achieve economic and social\nlifestyles,\ncohesion have major\nimplications in relation to\nenvironment policy as indeed was recognised in\nthe Single European Act : the increased economic Towards Sustainable Development\ngrowth expected will be unsustainable unless\nenvironmental considerations are taken into account,\nnot so much as a potential limiting factor, but rather as\nan incentive to greater efficiency and competitivity,\nwith particular reference to the wider international\nmarket-place\n\nAll human activity, economic and socio-cultural, either\nAl I human activity, economic and socio-cultural , either\nprospers or founders on the quality of the relationship\nprospers or founders on the quality of the relationship\nbetween society and the natural world. Development\nbetween society and the natural world. Development\n'S \"real\" only if it improves the quality of life. The 1 987\nReport of the World Commission on Environment and\nDevelopment - generally referred to as the Brundtland\nReport-urgedthathumanactivityshouldfollowapath\nAt the same time, the Community is moving towards\ncloser economic and monetary union and will probably which sustains human activity progress for the entire\n\n0\n\n\fplanet into the distant future. In this context sustainable\ndevelopment was defined as\n\"development which\nmeets the needs of the present without compromising\nthe ability of future generations to meet their own\nneeds\". It entails preserving the overall balance and\nvalue of the natural capital stock, redefinition of short,\nmedium and long-term cost/benefit evaluation criteria\nand instruments to reflect the real socio-economic\neffects and values of consumption and conservation ,\nand the equitable distribution and use of resources\nbetween nations and regions over the world as a\nwhole. In the latter context, the Brundtland Report\npointed out that the developed countries, with only\n26 % of the world population, are responsible for\nabout 80 % of world consumption of energy, steel and\nother metals, and paper and about 40 % of the food. The following characteristics of sustainable\ndevelopment were identified :\n\nit maintains the overall quality of life;\n\n-\n- it maintains continuing access to natural\n\nresources;\n\n- it avoids lasting environmental damage. In more prosaic terms it has been defined by the\nadmonition : \"Don't eat the seed corn which is needed\nto sow next year's crop\". Such a definition is useful in\ninjecting an important dose of realism into the debate\non sustainability. the\nconcept of sustainability is ultimately linked very closely\nto a society's or region's prospects of continued\ndevelopment and success and, in the case of individual\nenterprises, even their profit and loss accounts. In practical\n\ntherefore,\n\nterms,\n\nBuilding on Solid Foundations\nIt is important to bear in mind that in moving towards\nsustainable development the Community is not starting\nfrom zero. The strategy and programme set out in this\ndocument have been built on what has already been\nachieved both at the Community level and in the\nMember States. The Community has had an\nenvironment policy for almost twenty years, despite\nthe fact that the environment was not mentioned in the\noriginal Treaties. In that time, significant advances\nhave been made in terms of both elaboration of an\nextensive legislative framework in the Member States\nand actual improvements in environmental protection\nand quality. Since 1972 there have been four Community action\nprogrammes01 on the environment which have given\nrise toabout 200 piecesof legislation covering pollution\nof the atmosphere, water and soi I , waste management,\nsafeguards in relation tochemicals and biotechnology,\nproduct standards, environmental impact assessments\nand protection of nature. Much has been achieved\nover this period but the current pace of change and the\nadditional pressures which are being or will be imposed\non the environment and the natural resource stocks as\n\n18\n\na result of completion of the Internal Market and\npolitical and economic developments in Central and\nEastern Europe and further afield call for even more\neffective measures. Institutional Developments\n\nAt institutional level , the extraordinary growth in publ ic\nawareness, scientific perception and political\nimportance of environment issues was reflected in the\nTreaties by the insertion through the Single European\nAct, of a separate Chapter on the environment and the\ninclusion of a significant environment element in the\nkey article relating to the completion of the internal\nmarket. These modifications provided,\nfor the first\ntime, a statutory mandate, objectives and criteria for\nCommunity policy and action in the field of the\nenvironment. The new Treaty on European Union, which was signed\nby al I the Member States on 7 February 1 992, contai ns\na number of provisions which will bring care for the\nenvironment into a new dimension :\n\namong the Principles, Article 2 refers to the\npromotion of \"a harmonious and balanced\ndevelopment of economic activities, sustainable\nand non-inflationary growth respecting the\nenvironment\n\nArticle 3(k) provides that\nthe activities of the\nCommunity shall include a policy in the sphere of\ntheenvironment; Article 7 30r. 2provides, inter alia ,\nthatthispolicyshallaimat a high level of protection\nand that it shall be based on the precautionary\nprinciple;\n\nArticle 130r,2 goes on to stipulate that\nenvironmental protection requirements must be\nintegrated into the definition and implementation\nof other Community policies;\n\nArticle 3b attaches special value to the principle\nof subsidiarity while Article A states the objective\nof having decisions taken as closely as possi ble to\nthe citizens. for\n\ncosts\n\nMoreover Article 1 30s. 5 addressesthe case of measures\nthe\ninvolving disproportionate\npublic authorities of a Member State. This article\nreflects the need to take into account economic and\nsocial cohesion in the formulation of environmental\npolicy. This need is also recalled in Article 130r. 3\naccording to which,\nin preparing its policy on the\nenvironment, the Community shal I take account of the\neconomic and social development of the Community\nas a whole and the balanced development of its\nregions. 01\n\nOJ N\u00b0C 112 , 20. 12. 1973 - N\u00b0 C 139, 13. 6. 1977 - N\u00b0 C 46, 1 7. 2. 1983 - N\u00b0 C 328, 7. 12. 1987\n\n\fIn addition, the agreed changes in the Community's\ndecision-making procedures providing for majority\nvoting by the Council of Ministers on most environment\nissues and the strengthening of the role of the European\nin this sector through the co-decision\nParliament\nprocedure should improve the efficiency and the quality\nof the legislative process in the future. What is NEW about this Programme?\nIn facing up to the environmental challenges in this\nfinal decade of the millenium and in endeavouring to\nmove towards a sustainable development path it is\nnecessary to focus on the agents and activities which\ndamage the environment and deplete the natural\nresource stock rather than wait, as has been the tendency\nin the past, for problems to emerge. As previously\nstated, this will require significant changes in current\npatterns of human consumption and behaviour. These\nobjectives cannot be met by action at Community level\nalone, but ratheron the basisofasharing ofresponsibility\nat all levels of society including governments, regional\nand local authorities, non-governmental organisations,\nfinancial institutions, production, distribution and retail\nenterprises and individual citizens. While it is appropriate that the strategy and programme\nshould be prepared at Community level , since it is the\nsole point at which all\nthe required measures and\nthe practical\nactions can be brought\nimplementation thereof wi 1 1 fall to be carried out at the\nappropriate levels in a complementary manner and in\naccordance with the ability to act. The basic strategy\ntherefore is to achieve full integration ofenvironmental\nrelevant policies through the active\nand other\n\ntogether,\n\nthe main actors in society\nparticipation of all\n(administrations, enterprises, general public) through\na broadening and deepening of the instruments for\ncontrol and behavioural change including, in particular,\ngreater use of market forces. The Challenge of the 1990s\nThe attainment of sustainable development calls for a\nfar-sighted, cohesive and effective approach. It will\ndemand considerable political and practical\ncommitment over an extended time-frame. The\nCommunity, as the largest economic/trading partner in\na world where it is increasingly seen that growth has to\nbe environmentally sustainable, must exercise its\nresponsibility to both present and future generations. To this end it must put its own house in order and\nprovide an example to developed and developing\ncountries alike in relation to the protection of public\nhealth and the environment and the sustainable use of\nnatural resources. The Dublin Declaration states that \"the environment is\ndependent on our collective actions;\ntomorrow's\nenvironment depends on how we act today\". There is\nnow a perceptible feeling throughout the Community\nand further afield that many of the great environmental\nstruggles will be won or lost during this decade; and\nthat by the next century it could be too late. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT\nAND BE WRONG !\n\n\u2022 \u2022\u2022\u2022\n\n19\n\n\fPART I\n\nA Policy and Strategy for the\nEnvironment and Sustainable\nDevelopment within\nthe European Community\n\n21\n\n\fChapter 1 :\nThe State of the Environment: Progress and Prospects\n\nMediterranean Region, with severe outbreaks now\noccurring annually. Further pressure from\nrecreational and associated second-home\nis giving rise to deterioration in\ndevelopment\nupland and mountain regions. : The difficulties in\nThe Urban Environment\nthe demands of\nreconciling the need to meet\nmodern commerce and transport with the desire\nto provide a good quality living environment are\nsteadily growing with resulting congestion ,\npollution, noise, deterioration of streets, public\nplaces and architectural heritage and general loss\nof amenity. Waste Management : Despite Directives going\nback to 1 975 on waste in general , on toxic and\nhazardous wastes and on transfrontier shipment\nof wastes, management of the Community's\nenormous waste stream is far from being under\ncontrol. Recycling and reuse options have not\nbeen developed beyond the infancy stage in most\nareas. Deficiencies in waste handling arrangements\npose a threat not only to the environment but\ncou Id have undesi rable i mpl i cations in the context\nof completion of the Internal Market,\nof completion of the Internal Market. A strategy for the future cannot be constructed without\nanalysing what the present situation is and what has\noccurred in the past. In conjunction with the publication\nof the 5th Programme, and underpinning its essential\nstrategy, an up-dated Report on the State of the\nEnvironment\nis being published. Among the main\nconclusions which can be drawn from that Report are\nthe following:\n\nAtmospheric Pollution : Some progress has been\nmade in reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide\nlead and CFCs, but\nand suspended particulates,\nserious problems continue toexist or are emerging\nas respects on one hand , a numberof \"greenhouse*\ngases such as, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides,\nozone and methane, and on the other hand, air\nquality problems, especially in urban areas. Aquatic Pollution : Some progress has been\nachieved with point sources of\ninland water\npollution , but this is being more than offset by\nincreased pollution from non-point sources,\nnotably agriculture. The quality of waters is under\nthreat and there is growing eutrophication of both\nfresh waters and marine waters. The Directive on\ngroundwater is not achieving its objectives and\nthese resources are under growing threat from\nboth overexploitation and pollution. In the case of\nmarine waters,\npollution from certain organic wastes, heavy metals\nand radioactive discharges, but severe pressures\npersist, particularly in the Mediterranean Region,\nthe North Sea and the Baltic Sea. Soil Degradation : The Directives\non waste\nmanagement, on the use of sewage sludge in\nagriculture and on use of nitrates on land and\ncertain aspectsofthe \"Seveso* Directiveon major\naccident hazards of certain industrial activities\nhave made or will make relatively good\ncontributions to the protection of soils. However,\nland and excessive\nover-intensified use of\napplication of chemical fertilizers , pesticides and\nherbicides, and ground drainage and clearance\nactivities are causing deterioration of soils,\nincluding contamination , acidification ,\ndesertification and erosion, in many areas. Nature Conservation : Despite the Directive on\nWild Birds and the Conventions of Bonn and\nthe pressures on unique or endangered\nBerne,\nbiota and their habitats are increasing. Intensified\nagriculture is one of the most important causes of\nreductions in biological diversity. Economic\ndevelopments and erosion are causing a steady\ndeterioration of the coastal environment. Forest\nfires have devastated many parts of the\n\nthere have been reductions in Some Disquieting Trends\nSome Disquieting Trends\nThe Report on the State ofthe Environment also clearly\nindicates some trends which,\nif not satisfactorily\ncontained , could have significant negative\nconsequences for the quality of the environment as a\nwhole. For example,\n\n\u2022\n\nEnergy: a 25% increase by 2010 if there is no\nEnergy: a 25%\nchange in current energy demand growth rates,\nchange in curre\nresulting, in turn, in a 20 % increase in EC carbon\nresulting, in turn\nemissions (reference year 1 987)\n\nTransport : a 25% increase in car ownership and\na 17 % increase in mileage by 2000 (reference\nyear 1 990);\n\nAgriculture: a 63% increase in fertilizer use\nbetween 1970 and 1988 ;\n\nWaste: a 13% increase in municipal waste over\nthe last 5 years, despite increased recycling of\npaper, glass, plastics;\n\nWater, a 3 5% i ncrease in the Community's average\nwater withdrawal rate between 1 970 and 1 985;\n\nTourism : a 60% increase in Mediterranean tourism\nprojected by 2000 (reference year 1 990). 23\n\n\fNeed for a new impetus\nThe previous four Community action programmes and\nthe measures taken to implement them have had\nconsiderable merit in formal or legal terms and have\nachieved certain environmental\nimprovements in\nobjective terms. Furthermore, many of the actions\ndecided upon to date still have some time to run before\nthey show thei r fu 1 1 effects on the general state of the\nenvironment. not being fully implemented throughout\nthe\nCommunity, many of the existing instruments are not\nsatisfactorily coping with current\nlevels of\nenvironmental degradation. Moreover, most of them\nhave not been designed to meet the additional burden\nexpected to emanate from the upsurge of economic\nactivity followingon completion of the Internal Market\nand concomitant energy, transport and other demands,\nand the changes which are occurring in Central and\nEastern Europe. Nevertheless, whether because they have not had\nsufficient time to show full results or because they are\n\nThe time has come for Community environmental\npolicy to move into a new gear!\n\nFIGURE 1 : SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT\n\nAir quality management\nWater resources management\nSoil quality maintenance\nNature , landscape , conservation\nEnergy security and efficiency\nDemographic management\n( incl. urban env. , public health and safety)\nWaste management\n\nVALUATION\n&\nPRICING\n\nMANAGEMENT\nOF\nRESOURCES\n\nI\n\nO*\n\nSUSTAINABLE\nDEVELOPMENT\n\n\\\n\nMOBILITY\nMANAGEMENT\n\nINFORMATIOI'\nEDUCATION\n\nTRAIN ING\n\nPhysical planning incl. EIA\nInfrastructure planning\nincl. modal choice and EIA\nTraffic management\nVehicle pollution control\n\nPRODUCTION\nAND SERVICES\nSECTORS\n\nLocation (ind. EIA)\nOperation licences (BAT)\nPollution controls ( IPC , info , audit)\nEnvironmental accounting\nTechnological development\nProduct policy\nIndustriaJ waste management\n\n0\n\n\fChapter 2 : The Fifth Programme:\nA New Strategy for the Environment and\nSustainable Development\n\nThe overal I objective ofthe Community is the improved\nits citizens. Together with\nand continued welfare of all\npolitical , economic and monetary union the Internal\nMarket is designed to hold constituent Member States\nand thei r peoples together and to motivate and provide\nthe framework for their socio-economic growth. The\nlong-term success of the Internal Market will be\ndependent upon the relative contributions of the\nindustrial , energy,\nregional development and\nagricultural policies and the ability of the transport\npolicy literally to deliver the goods. All ofthese policies\nare interdependent;\nthe ultimate limiting factor for\ncontinued efficiency and growth as they interface with\none another is the tolerance level of the natural\nenvironment. Behind the strategy set out in this Programme is the\nultimate aim of transforming the patterns of growth in\nthe Community in such a way as to reach a sustainable\ndevelopment path. Among other things this implies\nthat\n\nit be recognized that continued human activity\nand further economic and social development\ndepend on the quality of the environment and its\nnatural\nresources and on their satisfactory\nguardianship;\nsince the reservoir of raw materials is finite, the\nflow of substances through the various stages of\nprocessing, consumption and use should be so\nmanaged as to facilitate or encourage optimum\nreuse and recycling, thereby avoiding wastage\nand preventing depletion of the natural resource\nstock;\nthe behavioural\ntrends of citizens within the\nCommunity should reflea an appreciation that\nnatural resources are finite and that one individual 's\nconsumption or use ofthese resources must not be\nat\nthe expense of another's; and that neither\nshould one generation's consumption be at the\nexpense of those following. The implementation of such a strategy of sustainable\ndevelopment will require a considerable change in\nalmost all major policy areas in which the Community\nIt requires that environmental proteaion\nis involved. requirements be integrated into the definition and\nimplementation of other Community policies, not just\nfor the sake of the environment , but also for the sake\nof the continued efficiency of the other policy areas\n\nthemselves. The interdependence of the various policy\nareas, resources and sectors is depicted in Figure 1 over. In accordance with the European Council 's Declaration\n\u201cThe Environmental Imperative\" the guiding principles\nfor policy decisions under this Programme derive from\nthe PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH and the concept\nof SHARED RESPONSIBILITY,\nincluding effective\nimplementation of the \"Polluter Pays Principle\". This Programme continues to address major\nenvironmental\nissues such as climate change,\nacidification, water pollution , soil degradation and\nerosion, waste management, etc. However,\nrather\nthan be directed solely at these issues, the strategy of\nthe Programme is to create a new interplay between\nthe main groups of ACTORS (government, enterprise,\npublic) and the principal ECONOMIC SECTORS\n(industry, energy, transport, agriculture and tourism)\nthrough the use of an extended, and integrated, range\nof INSTRUMENTS. This can best be done efficiently\nwithin the Community framework. Without an overall\nCommunity framework within which all these activities\ncan be integrated and coordinated there is a danger\nthat the actions carried out by individual Member\nStates or regions, or by other actors will not have their\nfull\nthe integrity of Community\nachievements or actions in other policy areas, notably\nthe Internal Market, could be called into question. impact, or that\n\nFor each of the main issues, long-term objectives are\ngiven as an indication of the sense of direaion orthrust\nto be applied in the pursuit of sustainable development,\ncertain performance targets are indicated for the period\nup to the year 2000 and a representative seleaion of\nactions is prescribed with a view to achieving the said\ntargets. These objeaives and targets do not constitute\nlegal commitments but, rather, performance levels or\nachievements to be aimed at now in the interests of\nattaining a sustainable development path. Neither\nshould all the aaions indicated require legislation at\nlevel. Community or national\n\nSustainable development is a goal which will not be\nachieved over this Programme alone, but if effeaively\nimplemented, the Programme should mark a significant\nstep on the way towards it\n\n25\n\n\fChapter 3 : The Actors\n\nUp to now, Community action programmes on the environment have largely been based on legislation and\ncontrols involving government and manufacturing industry. The concept of shared responsibi lity requires a much\nmore broadly-based and active involvement of all economic players including public authorities, public and\nprivate enterprise in all its forms, and, above all , the general public, both as citizens and consumers. The ultimate\nobjective in the involvement of and interplay between these economic players (and in the employment of a\nbroader range of instruments which will\nis to strike a new\nbalance between the short-term benefit of individual persons, companies and administrations and the longer-\nterm benefits of society as a whole. The principle of subsidiarity and the concept of shared responsibility, which\nwill be applied in the endeavour to strike this new balance, are discussed in Chapter 8 below. in particular, market-related incentives)\n\ninclude,\n\n3. 1 Public Authorities\n\nis equally important\n\nThe r6le of government is a determinant not only in\nin\nIt\nrelation to legislation. economic planning and in setting conditions for\neconomic development,\nland use management,\naccessibility of information, education and training,\nmarket influence through taxation pol icies on products\n(e. g. tobacco and fuels), etc Further, while there are\nsubstantial differencies in the system of public\nadministrations in the Community,\nin most member\nstates the public authorities also act as operators of\npublic enterprises, such as road networks,\nrailways,\nairports, and the electricity production sector. In the\ngeneral endeavour to achieve sustainable development,\nGovernments have parti cu larly onerous responsi bi I ities\nboth in respect of state owned and controlled activities\nand also in creating the necessary framework and\nconditions, in providing incentives and in removing\nobstacles so as to enable the individual and private\nenterprise to play their respective roles. Local and regional authorities have a particularly\nimportant part to play in ensuring the sustainability of\ndevelopment through the exercise of their statutory\nfunctions as \"competent authorities\" for many of the\nexisting Directives and Regulations and in the context\nof practical application of the principle of subsidiarity. Some fields where local and regional authorities can\nplay a decisive role are :\n\nSpatial planning: application of sound planning\nprinciples so as to safeguard areas of value,\nto\nincluding nature reserves and landscapes,\nimprove urban fabric and circulation, and to\noptimise energy and transport efficiency;\n\nEconomic development: most authorities have\nsome function in stimulating\neconomic\ndevelopment in their areas. An appropriate degree\nof prudence can ensure sustainable use of the\nthat economic\nresources necessary for\ndevelopment to take place and to prosper;\n\nInfrastructural development: local and regional\nauthorities are primarily responsible for the\nplanning, provision and management of roads ,\nwater supplies, waste water treatment etc. and,\n\n26\n\naccordingly, are particularly well placed to\ninfluence the location, type and impact of physical\ndevelopment;\n\nControl of\nthrough\nIndustrial pollution :\nresponsible use of planning permissions, emission,\ndischarge and operating licenses , clean\ntechnologies, right of access to environmental\ninformation etc;\n\nWaste management : strict application of the\nrecognised ranking order in waste management -\nprevention , re-use and recycling, combustion as\nfuel , disposal by incineration and landfill - would\nserve both to reduce waste disposal problems and\nto save energy and raw materials. Transport: transport and traffic plans should be\nfully integrated into the overall planning process;\n\nPublic information, education and training : local\nand regional authorities, on the basis of existing\npublic access to\nCommunity legislation on\nenvironmental information , can facilitate greater\npublic involvement in environmental protection\nand in the improvement of public confidence;\nthose which have direct responsibilities in the\nfield of education have particular opportunities\nand responsibilities in respect of public awareness\nand behaviour;\n\nInternal auditing: administrations need tocritically\nanalyse their own operations, e. g. pubiicservic. es,\nsiting of offices, purchasing policies, choice of\nvehicles and equipment, energy conservation ,\nenvironmental auditing and communication of\ninformation to the public. Where applicable, Central Government should appiy\nthe above principles and measu res to their own\nadministrations and decisions 'e. g. planning ,\ninformation, education ,\ninternal auditing). training,\nFinally,\nit will be imperative to commit the necessary\nresources at central , regional and local levels to ensure\npractical\n\nimplementation. 3. 2 Public and Private Enterprise\n\nDependingon their nature, virtually all enterprises use\nnatural resources for their processes and products,\ncreate various types and quantities of waste, and\ncontribute to the pollution of air, water and soil. In\nlimited cases only have the long term costs of these\nresources and of the pol I ution so far been i nterna I ized\nin the costs of operating a plant or in the price of the\nfinal product or service. It is clear that the perpetuation\nof this situation is not viable on either economic or\nenvironmental grounds. There is a growing awareness\nthat industry's own interest is at stake :\nincreasing\ndemand for clean technologies and products will\ncreate new market opportunities, with particular\nadvantages for innovational companies; industry also\nsees the advantages in terms of savings on resources\nand energy, where environmental considerations are\nintegrated into management policy. Nevertheless it\nremains for the Community and the Member States to\ndetermine the framework and conditionsfor sustainable\ndevelopment. In this Programme five areas of activity are singled out\nas target sectors. These sectors represent a large share\nof the overall economic activity; their co-operation\nand attitude is vital\nthe way towards\nto paving\nsustainability. Notwithstanding the choice of certain\nkey sectors, it should be clear that all enterprise will be\n\nexpected to participate in the effort to move towards\nsustainability. The instruments to be developed and\nput in place will be designed to generate the broadest\npossible response. A comprehensive policy relating to consumer products\nwill be important if market mechanisms are to help\nchange human behaviour towards the environment. In\nparticular, it is essential that enterprises become more\nconscious of the extent to which their products and\npackaging become waste, and that\nthey accept\nresponsibility for such waste. The proposed\nCommunity-wide eco-label should encourage industry\nto design and manufacture products which have\nimpacts. Policies should be\nreduced environmental\ndeveloped in a way which will also serve to facilitate\nconsumers in making informed choices on the basisof\nsafety, quality, durability and general environmental\nimplications. In this context the retail sector will have\nto take up its part of the responsibility. Financial\ninstitutions which assume the risk of\ncompanies and plants can exercise considerable\ninfluence - in some cases, control\n- over investment\nand management decisions which could be brought\ninto play to the benefit of the environment. 3. 3 The General Public\n\nEach member of the general public has a number of\ncrucial roles to play :\n\nas an individual who may be concerned about the\nqualityofthegeneral environment, personal health\nand the quality of life of succeeding generations,\nand as a responsible citizen having the possibility\nof influencing policies and decisions;\n\nas a direct producer of pollution and waste within\nthe home, as an employer or employee, as a\ncommuter and in the pursuit of leisure interests;\n\nas a consumer of goods and services, since the\ncausesof and sol utions to envi ronmenta ! problems\nare often a function of consumer choice. Before the individual can playhis/her full potential role\nin practice, a number of conditions have to be met :\ngood knowledge and information is essential to relate\nan individual 's activitiesto environmental pollution or\nprotection as the case may be; awareness campaigns\nwill be needed to remedy this situation. Good intentions\nwill not produce the desired results unless alternatives\nexist, forexample, separate col lections ofwaste, reliable\npublic transport systems, etc. With respect to the choice of products and services,\ncertain practical obstacles will have to be overcome :\nthe more ecological\nfriendly product may not be\navailable where one normally does the shopping, or,\nif available, the price may be higher than the more\npolluting ones. (It is clear from the example on the\ndifferential pricing of unleaded and leaded fuel that, if\nthe price is attractive, the consumer has incentive to\nmake a choice in favour of the environment). And, in\norder to gain and retain the confidence of consumers,\nenvironmental claims must be well founded and be\naccompanied by neutral\ninformation regarding the\ncharacteristics of products. The active involvement and participation of non\u00ac\ngovernmental organisations ( NCOs), both environment\nand consumer oriented, as well as trades unions and\nprofessional associations will be crucial to the general\nprocess of awareness-bui Idi ng, to the representation of\npublic interest and concern, and to the motivation and\nengagement of the members of the general public\nthemselves. 27\n\n\fChapter 4 : Selected Target Sectors\n\nAs indicated in the Chapter on ACTORS above (see Public and Private Enterprise) five targe: sectors are selected\nfor special attention under this Programme. These sectors have been chosen because they are sectors where the\nCommunity as such has a unique role to play and where a Community approach is the most efficient way to tackle\nin an overall way the problems these sectors face. They are also chosen because of the particularly significant\nimpacts that they have or could have on the environment as a whole and because , by their nature, they have\ncrucial rbles to play in the attempt to achieve sustainable development. These factors are more fully dealt with\nin Chapter 5 and in the material which follows immediately below on the target sectors themselves. 4. 1 Manufacturing Industry\n\nThe industrial sector accounts for approximately 25%\nof the Community's wealth and industrialization is a\nkey element of development strategy both within the\nCommunity and at wider international level. But in its\nexploitation of natural\nresources, consumption of\nenergy, production processes and generation of both\npollution and wastes, the industrial sector is among the\nprincipal causesofenvironmental deterioration. Insofar\nas the environmental consequencesofindustrial activity\nmay exceed the tolerance level of the natural resource\nbase it can limit or block further industrial development\nin a locality or region. One of the primary goalsof the Community's industrial\npolicy is to create the framework and conditions for a\nstrong,\ninnovative and competitive industrial sector\nthereby ensuring the competitivity and sustainability\nof Europe's industries in the global market-place. It is\nnot in the overal I interest of the Community to sacrifice\nlong-term economic and social rewards for the sake of\nshort-term financial gains. Previous environment measures have tended to be\nproscriptive in character, with an emphasis on the\n\"thou shall not* rather than the \"let's work together\"\napproach. As a consequence, there has been a tendency\nto view industrialization or economic development\nand environmental concern as being mutually hostile. Against the background of deepening concern for the\nenvironment and natural resources, and realisation of\nthe negative economic effects of environmental\ndegradation, it is now clear that envi ronmental ly sound\nindustry is no longer a matter of luxury but rather a\nmatter of necessity. It isequally clear that many sectors\nof industry are themselves becoming more appreciative\nof their relationship with and responsibility for the\nenvironment and the natural resource base. One of the\nkey messages of this Programme is that in the field of\nenvironment,\nindustry must not only be part of the\nproblem but also part of the solution. In order to ensure that optimum conditions exist for\ncontinued economic growth within the Community\nand that Community industry can identify the necessary\nlong-term strategies to remain economically\n\nn\u00bb\n\n(SEC(91)629),1 9. 4. 1 991\n\ncompetitive it isessential to view environmental quality\nand economic growth as mutually dependent. For\nindustry, a soundly based, comprehensive environment\npolicy can contribute to optimisation of resource\nmanagement , public confidence building and\ndevelopment of market opportunities. Many of the\nnew clean and low-waste technologies not only reduce\npollution substantially, but economize on the\nconsumption of raw materials and energy to such\nextent that cost savings can more than offset initial ,\ninvestment costs and thereby reduce unit\nhigher,\nproduction costs. A case in point is represented in the\ndevelopment and use of new techniques in the field of\ngenetic engineering and biotechnology : these offer\nfor useful applications in\nconsiderable potential\nagriculture ,\nfood processing , chemicals and\npharmaceuticals, environmental clean-up and the\ndevelopment of new material and energy sources. In\nrecognition of the importance of this particular sector,\nthe Commission published a Communication in 1 991\npromoting a competitive environment for industrial\nactivities based on biotechnology within the\nCommunity01. The combination of an advanced technological society\nwith a vigorous, creative and adaptive manufacturing\nbase which lies at the coreofthe European Community's\neconomic well-being and underpins its political\nstability, can bring about better distribution, better\ncommunications, greater personal choices and should\nultimately guarantee better health and an improved\nquality of life. Under this Programme the dual approach of high\nenvironmental standards combined with positive\nbe\nincentives to even better performance should\napplied in a coordinated manner to the different points\nin the research-process-production-marketing-use-\ndisposal chain where industry, and industrial products,\nmay impact upon the Community's environmental\nresource base. For successful translation of this sequence\ninto a sustainable one, the environment has to be part\nof education and vocational training for all the actors\ninvolved in the chain, with special emphasis on\nresearchers and production engineers. \u0398\n\n\fA new sense of direction and thrust will be given to the\nenvironment/industrial policy interface by the institution\nofa comprehensive, integrated \"package\" of measures,\nincluding existing provisions, comprising the following\nelements :\nelements :\n\na strengthening of the dialogue with industry;\na strengthening of the dialogue with industry;\n\nimprovement of physical and strategic planning\nincluding assessment of environmental\nimplications of plans and programmes;\nimplications of plans and programmes;\n\nimproved management and control of production\nprocesses including a system of licensing linked\nto integrated pollution prevention and control ,\nenvironmenta ! auditing, effective environment\nvaluation and accounting, useof best available\ntechnology, and introduction of market-based\npricing systems for consumption and use of\nnatural\nIn setting standards and\nconditions, due accountwill be taken of the lead-\ntime needed to facilitate investment decisions;\ntime needed to facilitate investment decisions;\n\nresources. higher, more reliable product standards designed\nto ensure that the environmental impact of products\nduring their whole life cycle is minimised using,\ninteralia,aCommunity-wideecological labelling\nsystem. ;\nSystem. ;\n\nencouragement ofvoluntary agreements and other\nforms of self-regulation;\nforms of self-regulation;\n\neffective waste management\nideally should\ncommence with the control of production\nprocesses; in this respect it is to be expected that\nthe package of measures indicated for the\nproduction aspects will have a significant impact\non both quantities and types of waste generated;\ninclude\nother elements\nreclamation of waste products by original\nproducers or importers (which would also improve\nwaste handling), continued research intorecycling\nand reuse technology, with pilot projects in these\nareas; and norms for industrial waste incinerators\nand iandfill sites todeal with threats posed by final\ndisposal ofwastes;\ndisposal of wastes;\n\nin the strategy will\n\n*\n*\n\n*\n\n*\n\n*\n\n*\n\n*\n\n*\n\nFigures 2a anc/2boverleaf indicate how manufacturing\nindustrywill berequiredorencouragedbytwodifferent,\nbut complementary forces to move towards\nenvironmentally-responsible production processes and\nproducts. products. Figure 2a shows how various legislatively-based rules,\nstandardsand procedures will be applied to thedifferent\nstages of the authorisation - production - appraisal\nchain so as to create a self-perpetuating inducement to\nprogressively apply ever-improving standards,\nFigure 2b has consumer awareness and choice as its\nFigure 2b has consumer awareness and choice as its\ncentral strength. The cycle is market-driven , self-\nregulatory and self-perpetuating. As indicated it would\nserve not only the private consumer but also other\ncompanies wishing to gain or enhance their own eco-\nrating. Thepotentialeffectivenessofthismodeldepends\nontheavailabilityofchoiceandofobjectiveappraisal\nand information,\n\nIn consideringthis package to ensure the sustainability\nof the industrial sector and to provide for continued\nindustrial and economicgrowth, special consideration\nindustrial and economicgrowth, special consideration\nwill be given to the position of small and medium\nenterprises and the matter of\ninternational\ncompetitiveness. Small and Medium Enterprises\nIn relation to small and medium enterprises\ndiscrimination in respect of the measures outlined may\nnot be either desirable or necessary on the grounds,\ninter alia, that\n\npollution isnotthe prerogative of large installations;\nin aggregate, small plants also cause their share of\npollution and waste;\n\nmany survive on the demand created by large\nfirms which will be obliged to tighten up their\nprocesses and meet the overall criteria of the\necological labelling system;\n\nin competition for investment finances, small and\nmedium enterprises cannot afford to be at a\ndisadvantage vis-S-vis their larger rivals. Neverthelessasfaraspossibleaspecialeffortwillneed\nto be made to avoid disproportionately burdensome\nfinancial or legal constraints which\nadministrative,\nfinally, it is essential that the general public and\nthe social Dartners are enabled to become more might impede the creationor development of SMEs. As\nthe social partners are enabled to become more might impedetne creationor development or oMts. AS\nfar as ongoing control measures are concerned, for\nactively involved in the development and practical\nexample, it may be possible in appropriate instancesto\nthis means that\nimplementation of policy :\nprovide for some variations in the timeframes for\nindividuals be given all the relevant information\nadaptation or implementation (subjectto normal Treaty\nnecessary to enable them to exercise informed\nrequirements). choices as consumers; they must also have access\nit may be possible to\nprovide direct practical assistance, including provision\ntoenvironmental ly relevant data (e. g. inventory of\nofexpert services, training programmes, etc. However,\n\u00e9missions, environmental audits, disclosure of\nit should be borne in mind that their very size generally\nenvironmental issues in the accounts ofenterprises)\ngivesSMEsagreaterlevelofflexibilityandadaptability;\nto enable them to monitor the performance of\nadherence to the state ofthe art would, in many cases,\nindustryand regulations alike. give them an edge in highly competitive markets or,\nindeed, open new markets. In other cases,\n\n29\n\n\fFIGURE 2a : Regulatory Process to Promote Environmentally - friendly and Competitive Industry\n\nPublic Authorities\nGeneral Public\n\n^ <EIA>\n\n\u00ed\n\nLOCATION\n\nStructural Planning\nPhysical Planning\n\nPERFORMANCE\nAPPRAISAL\n\nEnv. Audit\nInventory of emissions\ndischarges and wastes\nTradeable Permits\n\nManagemem\n\nInvestors\nFinanciers , Insurers L\n|>^ Public Authorities \u00ab\n\nGeneral\nPublic\n\n/\n/\n\nOperating Conditions\n(ind. BAT)\nEmissions Limits\nTradeable Permits\n\nRENEWABLE\nOPERATING\nLICENCE\n\nPRODUCTS\n\nProduct Standards\nEcological Labelling\nPackaging\n\nStandards-\n\nInstitutes\nConsumers\n\nJ * vv* , n\n\n/\u2022'VKT-T\n\nPublic Authorities\nGeneral Public\n(consultations)/\n\nPRODUCTION\nPROCESSES\n\nIntegrated Pollution Control\nInventory of emissions ,\ndischarges and wastes\n\nManagement\nPublic Authorities\n\nFIGURE 2b:The Potential of Consumer Power to Promote Ecologically-Sound Manufacturing\n\nProcesses and Products\n\nProduction\nProcess\n\nProduct\n\nEnvironmental\nAudit\n\nEcological\nLabel\n\nc\nO\nc 4\n3\nOT E\n\u2022\u00a7 2\n\u00a9 \u00a9\ntr ce\n\nConsumer Awareness\nand Cholce\n\nCompany Image\nMarket Share\nLiability Rating\n\nTu\u00bb\n\nInventory of emissions ,\ndischarges\nand wastes\n\nPublic Listing of\n:\n\"Clean\" / \" Dirty\"\nCompanies\n\ni\n\nL\n\n\u0398\n\n\fInternational Competitiveness\nOn the question of international competitiveness, the\nperceived conflict between environmental protection\nand economic competitiveness stems from a narrow\nview of the sources of prosperity and a static view of\ncompetition. Rather\nthan reduce competitive\nadvantage, stringent environmental requirements can\nactually enhance it by triggering upgrading and\ninnovation. Those countries which have the most\nrigorous requirements mostly lead in exports of the\naffected products and technologies. With particular\nreference to the issue of global competitiveness, the\ndecision by Japan 's Ministry of International Trade and\nIndustry (MITI ) to launch an action programme for the\n21st Century entitled 'The new Earth 21 \" requires a\nfirm response from the Community if our competitive\nposition in the global market-place is to be maintained. one of the objectives of\n\nTurning environmental concern into competitive\nadvantage is\n'Towards\nSustainability\". By aiming at reduction and elimination\nof pollution and at prevention, recycling and reuse of\nwaste rather than just abatement or clean-up and by\ncreating a broader mixof instruments, including market\nincentives,\nthereby avoiding constraints on the\ntechnologies used to achieve higher standards,\nenvironment policy can stimulate investment,\ninnovation and competitiveness rather than stifle them. In mid-1992 the Commission will submit a\ncomprehensive Communication to the Council of\nMinisters on industrial competitiveness and protection\nof the environment which will\nfurther develop this\ntheme and propose areas for action in the industrial\nfield. 4. 2 The Energy Sector\n\nThe Community's energy sector continues to be\nconfronted with local and regional environmental\nproblems such as acidification. In addition , concerns\nabout the global aspects of energy policy and their\neffects on the environment are growing in importance. A long-term strategy must be devised which ensures\nthat solutions for one problem do not exacerbate\nanother. The global challenge of the future will be to\nensure that economic growth, efficient and secure\nenergy suppl ies and a clean environment are compatible\nobjectives. Energy policy,\ntherefore, will be a key\nfactor in the achievement of sustainable development. it will\n\nRecent UN projections relating to the world population\nrise from 5 billion people in 1990\nare that\ntowards 10 billion in 2050. Consequential energy\nprojections indicate that energy demand will increase\nfrom around 9 billion tons of oil equivalent (toe)\nin\nin 2050 under a\n1990 towards 20 billion toe\nconventional wisdom scenario or towards 13 billion\ntoe under a high energy efficiency scenario. Even though there will be regional adjustments of the\nenergy shares'1 \u2019, these developments will still have a\nquite drastic impact on the environment at large. In\nboth energy scenarios the projected use of coal will\nin considerably increased emissions of\nresult\ngreenhouse gases,\nin particular C02. The lower level\n(1 3 billion toe) would result in a 60% increase of C02\nemissions on global\n\nlevel. there is a breakthrough in the development and\npenetration of alternative energy technologies such as\nrenewables (biomass, solar, wind etc. ). The high\nefficiency scenario will require a dramatic change in\nattitudes to energy use and would force industrialized\ncountries to achieve even higher efficiency gains than\nduring the period 1 975-85. Global energy and environmental improvements can\nonly be realized if major improvements are also\nachieved in the developing countries and in Central\nand Eastern Europe. A critical issue in this context isthe\nneed to transfer finance, technology and know-how to\nthose countries to hel p them to control the evol ution i n\ntheir energy demand whilst safeguarding their right to\nsustainable development. The Community has\nalready indicated its commitment in these areas in\nthe conclusions of the Council of Ministers\n( Environment) of 12 December 1991 relating to the\nUnited Nations' Conference on Environment and\nDevelopment The European Energy Charter which\nexpresses interdependence in the energy field and\nawareness of the shared responsibility for supply and\nfor the environment, can also make an important\ncontribution. The countries of Central and Eastern\nEurope would obtain the assistance they need for\neconomic recovery and for obtaining energy supplies\nunder conditions allowing a cleaner environment, a\nbetter balance between different energy sources, and\na more efficient use of energy. The projected future energy growth based on the\nconventional wisdom scenario would create\nconsiderable stresses for security of energy supply. These would be particularly severe in those developing\ncountries which do not have indigenous energy\nresourcesand the aim would probably be unachievable\nuniess there is a different approach to nuclear power,\nto greater use of waste related energy sources or unless\n\nOn the EC level , the Commission in 1990 presented\nfour scenarios identifying the range of influences at\nwork which could affect thedirectionofenergy demand\nand supply over the longer term\u00ae. Of these four\nscenarios, the two most contrasting paths along which\nour energy future may develop are of\nimmediate\nimportance for strategy formulation: a conventional\nwisdom scenario and a high prices scenario. These\n\nm\n\u00ae\n\nThe developing countries will account for 46%, the currently developed world 1 6% (41. 6% in 1 990) and\nthe Central ancl Eastern European countries 1 1 % (24% in 1 990). Energy in Europe, Energy for a new century: the European perspective, July 1990\n\n31\n\n\fscenarios do not yet take account of the unification of\nGermany. For a number of reasons induding this, the\nscenarios are at present being updated. The results of\nthis revision will be available by mid-1992. Explanation of Scenarios and their implications\nScenario 1 , otherwise referred to as the \"business\nas usual * scenario with low economic growth and\nno new major environmental and energy policy\ninitiatives. Scenario 4, otherwise referred to as the \"high\nprices\" scenario with same growth as under\nscenario 1 , but with rapid increase of energy\nefficiency, a significant increase in nuclear power,\ngas-fired plants replacing coal-fired units plus an\nincreased energy price to consumers through for\nexample, an energy/carbon tax. On the basis of these scenarios, the estimates for\ntotal EC-12 energy consumption ( in million toe)\nand emissions into the air ( in million tons) in 201 0\nwould be;\n\nTABLE 1\n\nConsumption\n\nCO,\n\nSO,\n\nNOx\n\n1148. 33\n\n2738\n\n1223\n\n10. 38\n\n1376. 59\n\n314325\n\n6. 56\n\n7. 85\n\n975. 59\n\n2098. 37\n\n4. 32\n\n4. 35\n\n1990\n\n2010\n\nScenario 1\n(conv. wisd. )\n\n2010\nScenario 4\n(high prices)\n\nOn the bases of the predictions offered, only\nScenario 4 or a simi lar one would meet the agreed\nCOj stabilization target for 2000 by reference to\n1 990 levels and could achieve further reductions\nof the order of 25% by the year 201 0 on the basis\nof present day knowledge and anticipated\ntechnology,\nand considerable structural and\nbehavioural changes. SO, emissions have been i n ded ine sinee the beginni ng\nof the eighties and will continue to fall substantially in\nthe future as a consequence ofCommunity and national\nenvironmental\nlegislation , energy efficiency\nimprovements and the use of cleaner fuels. NOx\nemissions will also be reduced up to the year 2010,\nthough, less drastically than S02 emissions. However,\neven these reduced SO. , and NOx emissions are\nexpected to cause environmental problems in many\nareas of the Community on national , regional and\nurban levels by exceeding critical acidification loads\nas shown under paragraph 5. 2 of the Chapter on the\n\nThemes and the Targets of this Programme. Therefore\neven greater efforts are required to reduce emissions to\nsustainable levels. In the casefo NOx, some additional\nreductions can be realized in the power generating\nsector and manufacturing industry; considerably greater\nreductions could be achieved in the transport sector,\nmainly through structural and behavioural changes. For S02 the greatest scope for reductions on present\nthe power generating sector (where\nlevels lies in\ncertain regulatory measures are already in force, but\nnot yet fully implemented) and in the manufacturing\nindustry sector. The achievement of practical results in the field of\nenergy requires a strategic perspective wel I beyond the\nyear 2000. The key elements of any strategy for the\nshort-to-medium term would be an improvement in\nenergy efficiency and the development of strategic\ntechnology programmes,\nincluding R & D, moving\ntowards a less carbon-intensive energy structure\nincluding,\nin particular, renewable energy options. These elements have already been the subject of a\nCommunication from the Commission to the Council\nin November 1 989 \"Environment and Energy\"01. The\nCommission in another Communication \"A Community\nStrategy to limit Carbon Dioxide emission and to\nimprove energy efficiency\"\u00ae has made a number of\nproposals which have received the general support of\nthe Council. Among the measures envisaged within an\noverall strategy are the introduction of economic\ninstruments, which would require that the real costs of\nconsuming energy are passed on to the user\n( for example through a CO/energy tax); better\ninformation, education and training for end-users;\nagreements with industry relating to codes of conduct\n(at EC level, codes of conduct have already been\nconcluded in the electricity, coal , oil and natural gas\nsectors) and improvement of efficiency ; energy\nefficiency standards for all kind of products and\nappliances, energy saving programmes and building\ninsulation standards (in conformity with the already\nadopted SAVE and PACE Programmes); further study\non the environmental aspects of nuclear energy;new\nenergy technologies and the promotion thereof (on the\nbasis of the THERMIE and JOULE Programmes) and\nfurther promotion of use of renewable energy (as has\nbeen proposed in the ALTENER Programme). The task for the future is to vigorously implement the\nprogrammes mentioned and, where necessary,\nto\nreview, intensify and enlarge them. Table 2 sets out the measures necessary up to the year\n2000, the instruments needed to be developed as from\n1 993 , and the actors involved, in order to make the first\nimportant steps to the achievement of a sustainable\nenergy policy. 32\n\n01 COM (89) 369 of 8 February 1 990\n\u00ae\n\nSEC (91 ) 1 744 final of 1 4 October 1991. MEASURES UP TO 2000\n\nINSTRUMENTS\n\nTIME-FRAME\n\nACTORS\n\nTable 2 : ENERGY\n\nawareness building and incen\u00ac\ntives aimed at sustainable en \u00ac\nergy use and behavioural\nchanges\n\n* information to , education and training of end-users\n\n1993 onwards\n\n* agreements with industry on efficiency\n' codes of conduct to be adopted by the actors concerned\n\nongoing\nongoing\n\nenergy efficiency programmes\n\nongoing\n1993 onwards\n\nongoing\n\n* \u00e9conomie and fiscal instruments\n* removal of restrictive rules\n\nImplementation of PACE , SAVE and national efficiency\nProgrammes , including :\nleast cost planning\n*\n* energy efficiency standards for appliances , products\n\nand vehicles\n\n* efficiency standards for energy technology\n' buildings insulation standards\n* minimization of methane leakages from natural gas\n\ndistnbution systems\n\nMS + EC + public +\nEnergy sector\nMS + Ind + EC\nEnergy sector + MS +\nInd + EC\nEC + MS\nMS + EC\n\nEC + MS + Ind +\nEnergy sector\nInd + Energy sector\nEC + MS -rind +\nTransport sector\nEC + Ind\nMS + Ind + EC\nMS + Energy sector\n\ntechnology programmes\n\nImplementation of THERMIE and JOULE Programmes ,\nincluding :\n* RAD of new energy technologies and promotion and\n\nongoing\n\nEC + MS + Ind +\nEnergy sector\nKj\n\nuse thereof\n\n* RSD on renewables (i. e. biomass )\n\npromoticnal programme\n\nALTENER : promotion of renewable energy\n* Pilot projects and standardisation\n\n1993 onwards\n\nnuclear safety programmes\n\nStudy on safety and waste aspects of nuclear energy\n\nongoing\n\nid\n\nid\n\nEC + MS + Energy\nsector\n\n4. 3 The Transport Sector\n\nTransport is vital to both our economic and social well \u00ac\nbeing. It is essential to the production and distribution\nof goods and services, as well as to trade and regional\ndevelopment. Transport has made a major contribution\nto economic growth in the Community. It has enabled\nthe achievement of important economies of scale in\nproduction and led to increased competition. In the\nCommunity,\nthe transport sector accounts for\napproximately 10% of the Cross Domestic Product\nand represents 9% ofemployment (these figures include\ntransport for own account of both goods and persons\nas well as the production of transport means and\ncreation and maintenance of infrastructure). Since\n1 970 the overall annual growth in inland transport has\naveraged 3,1% for passengers and 2,3% for goods. Both in absolute and relative terms the increase in road\ntransport has been much higher than for the other\ninland transport modes. Since 1 980 the increase in air\npassenger transport has averaged 6,2% per annum. Despite the crucial importanceof the sector, asituation\nhas been allowed to evolve in many parts of the\nCommunity, especially in the largerurban and industrial\nareas and along many of the principal traffic arteries,\nwherein imbalances in terms of disproportionate\nmobility by road, excessive traffic and congestion ,\nuncoordinated infrastructure planning as well as\ninefficient use of existing transport capacity are\n\nsymptomatic for the transport market and has already\nled in many areas to a form of rationing by congestion. Present trends in road and air transport are all leading\ntowards even greater\ninefficiency , congestion,\npollution, wastage of time and value, damage to health,\ndanger to life and general economic loss. Physical\nconstraints - mainly environmental constraints- are\nsuch that it will not be possible in the future as it was\nin the past, to base transport policy on the demand side\nof the equation. Transport is never environmentally neutral , since all\nmodes of transport have varying degrees of impact on\nthe environment. Emissions of transport - primarily\nroad and air traffic - represent a very high share of the\noverall emissions : about 90% of all\nlead emissions,\nabout 50% of all NOx emissions and about 30% of all\nIn urban areas, traffic causes almost\nVOC emissions. 100 % of the CO emissions, 60% of HC and NOx\nemissions, 50% of particulate emissions, and about\n1 0% of S02 emissions. Transport emits 22% of all C03\nemissions. Of this, 80% emissions arise from road\ntransport and more than 55% for the private car alone. Furthermore, the transport sector - in particular, road\nand air traffic - is reckoned to be the biggest contributer\nto the problem of noise. 33\n\n\fRecent EC legislation on exhaust emissions of cars and\ntrucks will result in a substantial reduction of pollution\nby individual vehicles. However because of the\nprojected increases in the volume of cars used, the\nmileages driven and increases of road freight traffic,\nthe transport sector's share in overall emissions will\nincrease from 22 to 24% of C02, from 4 to 1 2% of S02\nand from 58 to 59% of NOx and thereby will offset any\npotential reductions attributable to the introduction of\nthe new emission standards. Transport demand and traffic are expected to increase\nsignificantlywith the completion ofthe Internal Market,\nthe political and economic developments in Central\nand Eastern Europe and the development of\nthe\nEuropean Economic Area. The efficacity and\nsustainability of transport policy itself in the future will\nbe in direct proportion to the quality ofthe relationship\nbetween transport and the environment. It will be\nessential to pursue a strategy aimed at reducing - or at\nvery least containing - the overall impact of transport\non the environment. limit\n\nIn particular it wil I be necessary to reduce operational\npollution ,\ninfrastructural\nthe impact of\ndevelopment on land use\" 1 , reduce traffic and\ncongestion (especially in urban areas) and prevent or\nreduce risks inherent in the transport of dangerous\ngoods and wastes. The Commission has recently\npublished a Communication on transport and the\ninter alia,\nenvironment\u00ae _\nenvironment\u00ae _\nproposes a strategy for \"sustainable mobi lity\" involving\na combination of :\n\n, which,\n\n*\n\n*\n\nimproved land-use/economic development\nlocal , regional , national and trans\u00ac\nplanning at\nnational\nlevels, to reduce the need for mobility\nand allow for the development of alternatives to\nroad transport;\n\nimproved coordination in the planning of and\nin transport infrastructure networks\ninvestment\nincorporation of the real costs of\nand facilities;\nboth i nfrastructure and envi ronment in i nvestment\npolicies and decisions and in user costs and\ncharges;\n\nimprovement of competitive position of\nenvironment- friendly modes, such as railways,\ninland and sea navigation and combined transport;\n\ndevelopment of urban transport, which gives\npriority to collective transport and to adequate\nlink-up between the different stages of journeys;\n\ncontinued technical improvement of vehicles and\nfuels;\n\n*\n\npromotion of more environmentally rational use\nof the private car, and changes in driving rules and\nhabits, including speed limits. transport,\n\nImplementation will be a matter for all\nlevels of\nadmi nistration and society, right down to the individual\ncar owner - a true sharing of responsibilities. But\neffective results will ultimately depend on the\ncomplementarity of measures and efforts. For instance,\nprivate driving habits are largely a function of effective\nchoice which is dependent upon the availability of\nalternative modes of\nthe quality of\ninfrastructure, the cost of parking etc. Information and\neducation programmes alone will achieve relatively\nlittle if the effective choice is restricted. Likewise,\nprofessional road hauliers will have little option but to\ncontinue to use the road system so long as the location,\ndelivery times and condition of cargoes cannot be\nguaranteed by other modes of transport. In this\nconnection, the rai Iway system will only play afull rC>le\nin the servicing of the Internal Market, if a satisfactorily\ncoherent Community-wide network can be created\nbetween the various national or semi-state railway\ncompanies and if there is some form of integrated\nlogging and tracking system where goods, materials\nand waste cargoes are concerned. Optimisation of\ntransport modes and infrastructure facilities, networks\nand investments can serve private, corporate, national\neconomic,\nInternal Market and environmental\nprotection interests side-by-side. Table 3 givesan indication of measures and instruments\nneeded, the actors involved on different levels but\nacting in partnership, and the time-frame envisaged. 0\n\nExcluding the surface area of intersections, junctions and carparks, the road network takes up about 3,1 % of the Community's total\narea; excluding land used for railway stations and marshalling yards, the railway network takes up 0,1 % of land. COM (92) 46 final of 20 February 1992 : Green paper on the impact of Tranport on the Environment, a Community strategy for\n\u2022Sustainable mobility-\n\n\u00ae\n\n\fTable 3 : TRANSPORT\n\nMEASURES UP TO 2000\n\nINSTRUMENTS\n\nTIME-FRAME\n\nACTORS\n\n(a )\nInfra \u00ac\nstructures\n\n- Land-use planning\n-\n\nInfrastructure investments urban transport ,\ntrans-shipment\nrail enhancement ,\ngoods handling , inland water ways /sea traffic\nInfrastructure charging\n\nfacilities ,\n\n-\n\nb) Fuels &\nvehicles\n\nProgressive technical improvement of vehicles :\nfuel\n- exhaust and noise emissions ,\n\nconsumption , performance , final disposal\n\nEIA\nStructural Funds\n\nRoad taxes and cSfferent forms\nof Fload pricing\n\nr\u00e9gulation\n\n- R4D\n-\n- vehicle testing (contr. techn)\n- Recyding of parts\n- Fiscal incentives\n\nComposition 4 consumption of fuels :\n- alternative fuels , cleaner fuels\n- complete move to unleaded petrol by 2000\n\n- R4D\n- Fiscal incentives\n-\n\nr\u00e9gulation\n\n( c ) User\nBehaviour\n\n- driver information 4 education on a more\n\nrational use of the car\n\n- campaigns in me<Sa , speed\nlimits and other physical\nconstraints\n\n2000\n\n1995\n\n1993\n\u044e\n\nbefore \u201c95\n2000\nbefore 08\n2000\n\n2000\n\nbefore 05\n\n2000\n1995\n\nongoing\n\n-\n\nimproved public/collective transport\n\n-\n\ninvestments ,\nplans\n\nland-use\n\n2000\n\n- discouragement of road traffic in cities\n- development of \u00e9conomie and fiscal\n\nincentives\n\n- charges , high parking fees ,\n- car pooling e. g. positive\ndiscrimination (lower tolls)\nof car poolers\n\n- development of\ninfrastructures\n\ninter active communication\n\n-\n\nlogging\ntracking\nand\nsystems, electronic home ,\nvideo conferences\n\nbefore *95\nid\n\nongoing\n\nMS/LAs\nMS/ LAs +\nEC\n\nMS + EC\nid\n\nIndustry* EC\nEC + MS\nMS * EC\nIndustry\nMS * EC\n\nIndustry* EC\nMS * EC\nEC * MS\n\nLAs/MS + EC +\nNGOs\n\nLAs'MS + EC\nTransp. authorities\nLAs* MS\nPublic\nToll operating\nCompanies,\nPublic\nEC + MS +\nIndustry\n\n4. 4 The Agriculture Sector\n\nAgriculture, together with forestry, occupies more than\n80% of the territory of the Community. Traditionally,\nthe farmer is the guardian ofthe soi I and the countryside. By careful husbandry, including integrated crop and\nlivestock farming and waste management, farmlands\nare passed in sound condition from one generation to\nthe next Agriculture has shaped and indeed continues\nto shape the European countryside and has set much of\nthe foundation of European culture. Just as in the case of manufacturing industry and\ntransport, however, the agricultural sector and farming\npractices have undergone significant modernisation\nand change during this century, and more particularly\nover the last forty years. Among the factors which have\nbrought change are the drift of rural populations to\ncities and towns, increased mechanisation , improved\ntransport, improvements in seed qual ity, crop protection\nand animal strains , international trade and competition\nin food products and feed-stuffs. Against this background, the Community's Common\nAgricultural Policy (CAP) has been developed and\nadapted so as to fulfill the objectives of the Treaty of\nassuring the availability of food supplies at reasonable\nprices, the stabilisation of markets and a fair standard\n\nof living for the agricultural Community. However,\nwhile the achievement of these objectives has been\ngreatly promoted by the CAP'S price support\nmechanisms, the same instruments are now seen to be\nhaving some less positive side-effects. in turn ,\n\nOne of these effects has been an over-emphasis in\nsome areas on production levels with consequential\nis leading to\nThis,\nover-intensification. overexploitation and degradation of the natural\nresources on which agriculture itself ultimately depends:\nsoil , water and air. In crop production, systematic use\nof plant protection products has led to a relative\nresistance in parasites increasing the frequency and\nthe cost ofsubsequenttreatments and causing additional\nsoil and water pollution problems. In certain areas of\nthe Community, large quantities of fertile top soil are\nlost every year because of erosion due to inappropriate\nmanagement of the land. In livestock farming, animal\ndiseases have become more difficult to deal with, as\ngenetic uniformity and concentration in space of\nholdings have increased. Animal wastes create more\nand more problemsofwater and soil pollution. Ground\nclearance and drainage are causing depletion of\nwetlands and reducing biodiversity. Excessive use of\nnitrogenous and phosphate fertilisers causes\n\n35\n\n\feutrophication in surface waters in many regionsof the\nCommunity;\nthe resulting algal blooms disturb the\noxygen levels ofthe water with dramatic consequences\nfor fish , feeding matter and the ecosystem in general as\nwell as the use of the water for drinking and recreation\npurposes. Even in cases where specific regional or\nhorizontal measures are introduced for soil protection\ntheir success is often compromised under the pressure\nof other market or structural measures. For example,\nefforts to protea heatherland and combat erosion in\nnorthern countries can fail because of overgrazing as\na result of the headage payment schemes, particularly\nin the sheep seaor. Apart from the environmental degradation incurred ,\nthe present system generates surplusses at high costs to\nthe Community budget without improvingthe income\nsituation of the European farmers. Given all of these\ncircumstances, it is not only environmentally desirable,\nbut it also makes sound agricultural and economic\nsense to seek to strike a more sustainable balance\nbetween agricultural aaivity and the natural resources\nof the environment. This appreciation is clearly reflected in recent\ndeliberations on the reform ofthe Common Agricultural\nPolicy which, interalia, have indicated that \"producing\nmore\" cannot be any longer considered as the central\npoint of Community policy. The Commission's 1 991\nRefleaion Paper on the development and future of the\nCAP*11 recognised the need to encourage extensifi cation\nwith the objea of not only reducing surplus produaion\nbut also of contributing to an environmentally\nsustainable form of agricultural produaion and food\nquality and formalising the dual role offarmersasfood\nproducers and guardians of the countryside. The\nCommission's subsequent proposals'21 include an agri -\nenvironmenta! aaion programme which encompasses\ntypes of financial assistance designed to\nseveral\nencourage farms to operate their land holding in an\nenvironmentaly-friendly way. Forestry\nIn many regions of the Community, forests are not only\na determinant faaor for the envi ronment, with different\necological and social funaions, but are also a matter\nofconsiderable economic importance. The Community\nas a whole is the second greatest consumer of timber\nin the world. Of a total annual consumption of some\n200 million m J, Community production yields\napproximately 100 million mJ i. e. it is only 50% self-\nsufficient at present\n\nNotwithstanding this situation , the Community forests\nhave long been negleaed. Today, nearly 40% of the\nis suffering various degrees of ill-health caused\ntotal\nmainly by acidification; IIASA studies'31\nindicate EC\n(excluding Spain) harvest-loss attributable to air\npoi lution of the order of 30 mil I ion m3 per annum, with\nan estimated value of some 1 0 billion ECU. In addition,\nabout 1 % of total forest area is destroyed each year by\nforest\nthis being in the\nMediterranean Region. the vast bulk of\n\nfires,\n\nin 1989,\n\nAgainst this background the Community,\nadopted a forestry policy*41 designed to :\nprotea the forest heritage against\nacidification and fire;\nimprove the produaivity of forests;\ndevelop forest and forest-related activities,\nespecially in rural areas;\npromote afforestation on agricultural\n\nthreat\n\nland. from\n\nHowever, over the period covered by this Programme,\nit will be necessary to look beyond the concerns and\naaions referred to above and to draw a closer link\nbetween the Community's internal timber produaion\nand consumption patterns and its moral and political\nobligations to work towards the solution of global\nconcerns about deforestation. Long term objeaives, medium term targets and\nmeasures needed in relation to agriculture and forestry\nare given in Table 4. 36\n\nCOM (91 ) 1 00 final oM February 1991\nCOM (91 ) 258 final of 11 July 1991\nIIASA : International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria: Executive Report 17, February 1991. COM (88) 255; C. |. N\u00b0 LI 65 , 1 5. 6. 1 989\n\n\u201c\n,31\n141\n\n\fT\u00bbNe 4 : AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY\n\nOBJECTIVES\n\nTARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nACTIONS\n\nTIME-FRAME\n\nACTORS\n\nMaintenance of the basic\nnatural processes indispen\u00ac\nsable for a sustainable\nagricultural sectornotably by\nconservation of water, soil,\nand genetic resources\n\nStandstill or reduction of nitrate\nlevels in groundwaters. Reduced incidence of surface\nwaters with a nitrate content\nexceeding 50 mg/1 , or giving rise\nto eutrophication oflakes and seas. Strict application of the nitrates directive\n\n1994 =>\n\nMS + AGR\n\nSetting of regional emission standards for\nnew lifeslock anils (NHj) and silos (silage)\n\nOngoing\n\nMS + LAs\n\nR\u00e9duction programme for phosphate use. 1995\n\nEC + MS\n\nDecrease in the input of\nchemicals to the point that\nnone of these processes be\naffected. Equilibrium between input\nof nutrients and the absorp\u00ac\ntion capacity of soils and\nplants. Rural environment ma \u00ac\nnagement permitting the\nmaintenance of biodiversity\nand natural habitats and\nminimising natural risks (e-g. terosion. avalanches)and fires\n\nStabilisation orincrease oforganic\nmaterial levels in the soil\n\nAllocation of premiums and other\ncompensating payments to be subject to\nfull compliance with\nenvironmental\nlegislation\n\n1995 =\u00bb\n\nEC\nMS + LAs +\n\nAGR\n\nSignificant reduction of pesticide\nuse per unit of land under\nproduction and conversion of\nfarmers to methods of integrated\npest control, at least in all areas of\nimportance\nnature\nconservation. for\n\n- Registration of sales and use of\n\nOngoing\n\nEC+A/S+AGR\n\npesticides\n\n- Comrol on sale and use of pesticides\n- Promotion of \u201cIntegrated Control\" (in\nparticular training activities ) and\npromotion of bio-agriculture\n\n1995\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nEC+A/S+AGR\nEC+MS+AGR\n\n15% of agricultural area under\nmanagement contracts\n\nProgrammes for agriculture/snvironrnem\nzones with premiums co- financed by\nFEOGA\n\n1992\n\nA/S+EC\n\nProtection of all endangered domestic\nanimal races\n\nOngoing\n\nMS\n\nManagement plans for all rural\nareas in danger\n\nRe-evaluauon of license conditions for\nirrigation and of slate aids for drainage\nschemes\n\n1995\n\nMS + EC\n\nOptimisation of forest area\nas to fulfill all their functions\n\nIncrease of forest plantation ,\nincluding on agricultural land;\n\nTraining of farmers , promotion of\nexchange visits between regions with\ncomparable environment management\nsituations\n\nNew afforestation and regeneration of\nexisting forest , favouring the most\nadequate means for the environment (slow\ngrowing trees, mixed afforestation);\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nEC+MS+LAs\n\nOngoing\n\nEC+MS+LAs +\nforesl-owmrs\n\nImproved protection (health and\nforest-fixes)\n\nFurther action against forest-fires\n\nid\n\nid\n\n37\n\n\f4. 5 The Tourism Sector\n\nTourism is an important element in the social and\neconomic lifeoftheCommunity. It reflects the legitimate\naspirations of the individual to enjoy new places and\nabsorb different cultures as well as to benefit from\nactivities or relaxation away from the normal home or\nwork setting. It is also an important economic asset to\nmany regions and cities of the Community and has a\nspecial contribution to make to the economic and\nsocial cohesion of the peripheral regions. Tourism\nrepresents a good example of the fundamental\nlink\nwhich exists between economic development and\nenvironment, with all the attendant benefits, tensions\nand potential conflicts. If well planned and managed,\ntourism,\nregional development and environment\nprotection can go hand in hand. Respect for nature and\nthe environment, particularly in coastal zones and\nmountain areas, can make tourism both profitable and\nlong-lasting. Within the EC, tourism represents 5. 5% of GDP,\naround 5% of export earnings and 6% of total\njobs,\nincluding more than 7 million full-time jobs. The\ndevelopment of the tourist sector is ratherdiverse in the\nCommunity. Over the last decade tourist activity has\ngone up by an average of 1 4% of total nights spent. The\nincrease is much more than average in the southern\npart of the EC. In the Alpine regions tourism has risen\nsharply to about 50 million people every year. As\nincome levels and leisure time increase over the next\ndecade, substantial growth is anticipated. This will\nhave its effect over the whole of Europe with an\nemphasis on coastal and mountain zones, with the\nMediterranean region taking a large share. Income\nincreases are expected to trigger more second hoi idays,\nwhich may be short but are expected to take place in\nenvironmentally high quality surroundings. The Mediterranean basin accounts for 35% of the\ninternational tourist trade and is the world's leading\ntourist area. According to the UNEP Blue Plan\"1, the\nnumber of tourists in the Mediterranean region could\ngrow to as many as 380-760 million per year in 2025,\ndepending on the economic growth rates. This\ndevelopment would\nbe in addition to predicted\ndemographic changes in the area. 1 60 million ofthese\ntourists in the year 2000 and 260 million in the year\n2025 would visit Mediterranean coastal areas, as\ncompared to 55 million in 1984 and around 100\nmillion in 1990. Estimates of the World Tourism\nOrganisation confirm the projections of the Blue Plan. Both indicate that up to 90% of any increase could\naccrue to Community Member States in the region. Such increases would require double the occupation\nof space by the year 2000 alone; the solid waste and\nwaste water generated could more than triple by the\nyear 2025. transport\n\nThese developments will have major implications for\nthe environment, imposing tremendous pressures on\nfacilities, coastal and mountain\nhabitats,\nland, energy and water resources, and waste water\ntreatment facilities, particularly at periods of peak\ndemand. The coastal zones especially will face severe\nproblems. Overall environmental\ntargets and longer term\nobjectives directly related to tourism (other than\notherwise required noise, water and air quality\nstandards) are difficult to define since tourism can\nhave both positive and negative effects on the\nenvironment and is very dependent on the individual\nconsumer choice. The i mpact of tourism depends very\nmuch on the type of tourism, the behaviour of tourists\nand the quality of the tourist services. Most of the\npressures on the environment stem from the mass\ntourism in coastal and mountain areas, which is likely\nto increase considerably over the next decades. It will\nbe necessary therefore todevelop national and regional\nintegrated management plans for coastal and mountain\nareas. Elements in these strategies which directly relate to the\ninteraction of tourism and environment would be\ncontrols on land use, the setting of strict rules on new\nillegal housing,\nconstructions, and fight against\nmanagement of private traffic flows to and in the\ntourist areas, diversification of tourism , strict\nimplementation and enforcement of environmental\nstandards on noise, drinking water, bathing water,\nwaste water and air emissions (including emissions in\nthe hinterland of the tourist areas), creation of buffer\nzones around sensitive areas such as wetlands and\ndunes, better dispersion of summer holidays, awareness\nbuilding and education of local people and tourists,\nand education and professional\ntraining of people\ninvolved in the management of the areas involved. The realisation of such strategies will rely principally\non measures to be taken by regional and local\nauthorities, and the tourism industry. A Community\nAction Plan to Assist Tourism published by the\nCommission\u00ae includes a number of specific measures\ndesigned to link environmental protection and tourist\ndevelopment e. g. inventories of tourism resources in the Member\nStates;\nimproved staggering of holiday^seasonal spread\nof tourism;\npractical guides for the tourist industry and pilot\nprojects in environmental tourism;\ndevelopment of a code of conduct for tourists;\n\n38\n\nn >\nUNEP'S Mediterranean Action Plan\n\u00ae COM (91 ) 97 final of 24 April 1991\n\n\fexchangesof information and experience in visitor\nmanagement;\nenvironmental awards and prizes. tourism ,\n\nIt is essential to place future growth of tourism within\nthe framework of sustainability. If well planned and\ncontrolled ,\nregional development and\nenvironment protection can go hand in hand. Recent\nexamples such as the algal plague in the Adriatic Sea,\nwhich cost an estimated 1,5 billion ECUs in lost\nrevenue from tourism and fishing in 1990,\nindicate\nclearly that the environment constitutesa very important\n\neconomic resource, requiring to be well maintained\nand protected. Sustainable tourism, based on respect\nfor nature and the environment can make a positive\ncontribution to the prosperity not only of the tourist\nindustry as such, but also of the surrounding regions\nand towards the economic and social cohesion of\nperipheral areas. Table 5 gives an overview of the elements of a strategy\non tourism, indicating which instruments need to be\ndeveloped within what\ntime-frame and by which\ncombination of actors and target groups. OBJECTIVES\n\nMEASURES UP TO 2000\n\nINSTRUMENTS\n\nTIME-FRAME\n\nACTORS\n\nTable 5 : TOURISM\n\nimproved control on land use\nstrict rules for new constructions\n\n-\n-\n- management of traffic flows to in and from\n\n1993 onwards\nid\n\nLAs\n\nLAs\n\nid\n\nMS + LAs\n\ntourist areas\n\n- visitor management ; exchange of expertise\n- pilot models of sustainable tourism\n- strict\n\nimplementation and enforcement of\nenvironmental standards on noise, drinking\nwater, bathing water, waste water treatment and\nair emissions\n\n1992-1993\nid\nongoing\n\nid\n\nid\n\nMS + LAs + HC\n\n- creation of buffer zones around sensitive areas\n\n1993 onwards\n\nMS + LAs\n\n- development and promotion of code of conduct\n- mul\u00fc-media campaigns + conf\u00e9rences\n- EC transport policy + national transport polides\n\n1993 - 1995\nid\n1993 onwards\n\nMS + LAs +\n\nTourist /nd. + EC\n\nEC \u2666 MS\n\n- economic incentives such as COj/energy tax\n\nand road pricing and encouraged use of public\ntransport\n\n1993\n1993 onwards\n\nEC + MS\nMS + EC\n\n- co-operation and exchange of information\n\n\u2022 national plan + r\u00e9gional plans\n- EC -Regional Development Fund\n- EC tourism action plan\n- EC tourism Advisory Committee\n\nbefore 1998\n\nbefore 1995\nid\n\nid\nid\n\nMS + EC +\nTourist Ind. LAs + MS + EC\nLAs + MS + EC\nLAs + MS + \u00a3C\nLAs + MS + EC\n\n- brochures\n- professional training\n- pilot projects. professional training and education exchange of\n\nbest practice\n\n1993 onwards\nid\n\nInd. + LAs\nid\n\nid\nid\n\nid\nMS + LAs + EC\n+ Ind\n\nType of tourism\n\n* Better management of\n\nmass tourism\n\n* National and regional\nintegrated management\nplans for coastal and\nmountain areas\n\nBehaviour of tourists\n\n\u2022 building environmental\n\nawareness\n\n\u2022 liberalisation of air and\n- TGV -\n\ncoach transport\nnetwork\n\n\u2022 increase of marginal costs\nof use of private car and\npromotion of alternative\ntransport modes\n\n\u2022 better\n\ndispersion\n\nof\n\nholidays\n\n\u2022 diversification of tourism\n(including rural and cultural\ntourism)\n\nQuality of\nservices\n\ntourist\n\n* promotion new forms of\ntourism which care for the\n\nenvironment\n\n* careful\n\ns\u00e9lection\n\nof\n\naccommodation\n\n\u2022 building of environmental\nawareness of people\ninvolved in management of\ntourist areas\n\n* building environmental\nawareness of local people\nand tourist services\n\n39\n\n\fSummary\n\nIt\nis appropriate to reiterate, at this point, that the\ndesignation of certain key target sectors is not intended\nto indicate an exoneration of other actors or sectors -\nALL public and private enterprise is called upon to take\nup a due share of the responsibility forgetting the new\nstrategy under way and putting the overall programme\ninto effect. The strategic approach to the m3in target sectors is\nsummarised in Table b. The succeeding chapters of this\ndocument set out detailed objectives, targets and time -\nframes in respect of reductions of environmental impact\nand an expanded range of instruments designed to\nbring about the necessary changes in behaviour and\ntrends. T\u00bbble 6 : PROGRAMME FRAMEWORK FOR SELECTED TARGET SECTORS\n\nINDUSTRY\n\nENERGY\n\nTRANSPORT\n\nAGRICULTURE\n\nTOURISM\n\nIntegrated Pollution\nControl\n\u2022 operating licenses\n- emission inventory\n- env. audits\n- env. charges\n- Clean and low waste\n\ntechnology'\n\nR\u00e9duction In Pollution\n\nCleaner Cnrs & Fuels\n\n- specifictargets forCOj,\n\n- emission limit values\n\nEcologically sustainable\nfarming\n- extensifica\u00fcon\n\nSOr NOx\n\n- econ & fiscal incentives\n- safe disposai of nuclear\n\nwaste\n\n- \u00e9conomie\n\nfiscal\n\n- r\u00e9duction of cheinicai\n\nincentives\n\n- vehicle testing\n- r\u00e9duction of\u00e9vaporation\n\ninputs\n\n- organic farming\n- consumer information\n\n- econ & fiscal incentives\n\nSusLTourtan , Land - use,\nInfrastructure\n- diinking water\n- baihing waier\n- waste management\n- sustainable mobility\n\nS\n\n\u00a3 I\n\nC M\n\nT P\n\nO A\n\nR C\n\nA T\n\nL S\n\nReduced Waste/ Better\nWaste Management\n\nDevelopment\nRenewable Sources\n\nR&D and promotion of :\n- biomass, wind , wave ,\nsolar, hydro, geothermal\n\nof\n\nRationalisation\n\nof\n\nForest Development\n\nInfrastructure\n\n- network planning\n- inter-modal choice\n\n- bottlenecks\n\n- communications\n\n- systematic planting\n- fire protection\n- sustainable harvesting\n\nProtection of Coastal\nZones & Natural, Man \u00ac\nmade or Built Amenities\n\n- d\u00e9sertification\n- cultural heniage\n- forest fi res\n\n- nature tr?ils\n\n- inventory of wastes\n- econ & fiscal incentives\n- deposit/retum system\n- high standards\n\nfor\n\ndisposai\n\n- cavil liability\n\nEcologlcally - frlendly\nProducts\n\n- eco-label\n- product standards\n- consumer information\n- ux differentials\n\nR\u00e9duction in Energy\nConsumptlon\n- econ & fiscal incentives\n\n- cons. info & educ. - SAVE, THERMIE, JOULE\n- regulatory instruments\n\u2022 volunL agreements\n\nImproved\nBehaviour\n\nDriver\n\nRural Development\n- land\n\nmanagement\n\n- info & \u00e9ducation\n\ncontrol\n\n- econ & fiscal incentives\n\n- choice of modes\n- traffic management\n\n* rural tourism\n- inland fishing\n\nBroader\n\nConsumer\n\nChoice\n\n- broader\noptions\n\nchoice\n\nof\n\n- betler information\n- betlerseasonal spreadof\n\ntourism\n\nN3. : The instruments indicated above are not exclusive to the sectors in which they appear, they have been inserted in the sectors in respect of which\n\nthey have the most obvious potential*\n\n40\n\nR\n\nK\n\nS\n\nO\n\nu\n\nR\n\nC\n\nE\n\nS\n\nE\n\nH\n\n\u039b\n\nV\n\nI\n\nO\n\nU\n\nR\n\n\fChapter 5 :\nThe Th\u00e8mes and Targets of the Programme\n\n!n this Chapter a number of themes are addressed. These are not intended as an exhaustive list of issues to be\ntackled within the Community over the period covered by the Programme. Rather, they represent matters of\nparticular seriousness which have a Community-wide dimension, either because of Internal Market, cross\u00ac\nboundary, shared resource or cohesion implications and because they have a crucial bearing on environmental\nquality and conditions in about all regions of the Community. Under each of the themes,\nlong term objectives are given as an indication of the sense of direction or thrust to\nbe applied in the pursuit of sustainable development. Given the present state of knowledge and particularly the\nabsence of parameters for sustainability, these objectives are generally expressed in qualitative as distinct from\nquantitative terms. As intermediate goals, certain targets are indicated, to be achieved within specified time-frames up to the year\n2000. These do not constitute legal commitments but, as the term \"target* implies, performance levels or\nachievements to be aimed at now in the interests of attaining a sustainable development path. The actions indicated for each theme represent a non-exhaustive list of measures to be taken in order to realize\ntargets set for the period up to 2000. Finally,\nthe tables indicated which sectors/actors are seen to be most directly responsible for the actions\ndescribed. In most cases an effort on different levels will be necessary to execute the set of actions needed to tackle\na problem. This aspect is dealt with in greater depth in Chapter 8. 5. 1 Climate change\n\nWhile global in character , the climate change predicted\nas a consequence of\nincreasing atmospheric\nconcentrations of greenhouses gases will also pose\nserious problems for the Community itself (frequency\nof extreme meteorological events, sea level rise, heat\nand drought spells, etc. ). Carbon dioxide (C03),\nchlorofluorcarbons (CFCs) nitrous oxide (NjO) and\nmethane (CH4) are the main agents of the greenhouse\neffect. The level ofC02 has risen mainly because ofthe burning\nof fossil fuels (energy sector,\nindustry and transport)\nand deforestation. The rises in the amounts of CFCs are\ndue entirely to industrial production since there are no\nnatural sources. Methane gases mainly come from\nagriculture (cattle and certain crops), energy (natural\ngas leakages) and waste sites. In 1990 a comprehensive report assessing the nature\nand the consequences ofglobal warming was publ ished\nby the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change\n(IPCC)m. In it, Commissions are identified as being the\nmain contributory factor to the green-house effect In\nthis respect, the Community's decision to stabilize\nCOj emissions at 1 990 levels by the year 2000 is an\n\nimportant first step towards dealing with the problem,\nan approach followed by most developed countries. Recently the Commission presented to the Council of\nMinisters\na Communication on a strategy on the\nreduction of COa emissions and on the improvement of\nenergy efficiency, including Community-wide carbon-\ncum-energy taxes designed to achieve these ends\u00ae. The Community has already set targets for the phasing\nout of CFCs and halons even ahead of those set out in\nthe Montreal protocol. In order to devise correct counteracting or adaptive\nmeasures, more has to be known about the possible\nimpacts of climate change on various sectors of the\nEuropean environment, and also about\nthe socio\u00ac\neconomic consequences of any measures that may be\ntaken. The problem is particularly important since it is\nclosely linked to some of the other themes which\nfollow and to various Community policies (research,\nagriculture, energy, transport). Against this background Table 7 indicates overall\nobjectives, targets for the year 2000, types of action\nrequired and the main sectors involved. n>\n05\n\nIPCO Reports of Working Groups, 1 990; Supplementary Report, 1 992, WMO/UNEP\nSEC (91 ) 1744 final of 14 October 1991\n\n41\n\n\fOBJECTIVES\n\nEC TARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nACTIONS\n\nTIME FRAME SECTORS\n\nT\u00bbble 7 : CLIMATE CHANGE\n\nCO,\n\nno exceedence of\nnatural absorbing\ncapacity ofplanet\nearth\n\n\u2022 stabilization on 1990 levels #)\n(progressive reductions \u00bbt the\nhorizon 2005 and 2010 (\")\n\n\u2022 Energy conservation measures e. g. continuous\n\n- env. benign energy use\n- bchavioural changes\n- \u00e9conomie and fiscal mcasures\n\n\u2022 Improvemeniofenergyefficiencye. g. id\n\n- RAD\n- infrestructurai changes\n- change in transport modes\n- \u00e9conomie and fiscal measurea\n\nEnergy\nTransport\nIndustry\nPublic\n\nEnergy\nWaste\nTransport\nIndustry\nConsumer\n\n* Fuel substitution low&rds less or no\nCO, \u00e9mittin g sources (renewables,\nnatural gas etc. ) e. g. -R AD\n- infrestructurai changes\n- \u00e9conomie and fiscal measurea\n\nid\n\nEnergy\n\n\u2022 Inventory of data\n\nbefore 1994\n\nEnergy\nAgriculture\nWaste\n\nIndustry\n\nMethane\n(CH. )\nN il r ou s\noxide (N,0)\n\nCFCs\n\n+\n\ncarbon -\nte&adiloride\n+ Halons +\n\u0428\nukhloKthane\n\nHCFCs etc\n\nno emissions\nof ozone\nlayer depleting\nsubstances\n\n* measurestobeidentifiednodater\nthan 1 994 and applied (possibly\nreduction targets)\n\n* phase oui before 1. 1. 1996\n\n(except for some essential uses)\n\n* limitation of use to maximum\n5% of 1990 CFC use levels\n\n#)\nN. B. (1)\n\ntargets already set by the EC\nThe EC commits itselftohelp and support countries which seek for it, in their aim for stabilization and reduction measures inrelation to green house gases. The following\nmeasures could be used : debt trading, technology transfer, general trade arrangements, participation in global financial mechanisms. Conclusions of the Joint Energy / Environment Council of 29 October 1 990. FIGURE 3 : DEPOSITION OF SO, AND NOx FROM EC-12 SOURCES IN EXCESS OF CRITICAL LOADS IN 1990\n\nil\n\nV\n\nt\n\nUJ\n\nT\u00ad\n\nu\n\n%\n\nJ\n\nc\n\n/\n\n42\n\n!\n\ny\n\nJ\n\nI\n)\n\n'W\n\ne\n\nA\n\nRIVM / CCE\n\nD;tl;t :\nex Cril. Loads\nI990\nReuion :\nEUROPE\n\nNOEXCEEOANCE\n\n<\ns\n\nCD *\nCD *\n\ns\n\ni\n\n200 00\n\n500 oo\n\n1000 00\n\n2000 00\n\n7000 00\n\nUnit : eq/ha. yr\n\nDhjM^iK'\n\n*( iirulunt-d *\n\n| Vj |,- 4. 6. | 99 |\nKt-nurk rxcr* Crrt. Ws\n\n1990\n\n\f5. 2 Acidification and Air Quality\n\nAcidification is due in considerable measure to the\ncombustion of fossil fuels and agricultural practices\nand has damaging effects on forest ecosystems,\nlakes,\nother surface and ground waters and soils. The main\nacidifying substances are sulphurdioxides (SO^),\nnitrogenoxides ( NOx), volatile organic compounds\n(VOCs), including hydrocarbons (HCs) and ammonia\n(NH}). NOx, HCs and VOCs create products such as\nozone (O,)\nthese in turn\nthrough photo-oxidation;\ncontribute considerably to damage of crops and\nvegetation, and human health (smog-periods). Recent studies in the framework of the UN Economic\nCommission for Europe have shown that it is possible\nto indicate for certain typesof ecosystems (and through\nthat, certain areas in Europe)\nthe levels and loads of\ndeposition which they can sustain without detrimental\neffects (critical loads, see explanatory box on page 45). Figure 3 gives an indication of the exceedances of the\ncritical\nloads in 1990 in Europe as a whole resulting\nfrom deposition of S02 and NOx from Community\nsources alone. Figure 4 indicates that the S02 and NOx emissions\nresulting from scenario 1\n(conventional wisdom) will\nexceed the critical loads in large parts of the EC. This\npiaure does not take into account the extra load of\nacidifiying substances resulting from ammonia\nemissions. is clear, that under scenario 1 , the EC\nwould not be heading in the direaion of sustainable\nenergy use. It\n\nThe computer calculations on the basis of the IIASA-\nRAINS model (see explanatory box) for scenario 4 are\nmore promising but scenario 4 would still not result in\na sustainable situation by 2010 in all regions of the\nCommunity (see Figure 5). Here again, effeas resulting\nfrom ammonia emissions are not taken into account\nThe message to be derived from this is that emissions\nand depositions in many regions of the Community\nrequire that the striaest possible measures be applied ,\n\nie. even beyond the 65% reduction in S02 emissions\nand the 60% reduction in NOx emissions, which\nwould result\nfrom development on the basis of\nscenario 4 (As has been indicated inthe chapter on the\nenergy sector, the Commission has presented four\nscenarios on the future energy demand in the EC. An\nupdate of these scenarios is in progress; the results are\nexpected by mid-1 992). However, in the case of the less developed regions of\nthe Community and certain regions which are in the\ncourse of economic restructuring -\nthe so-called\nObjectives 1 and 2 regions for the purposes of\ndisbursement of\nthe Community 's Regional\nthe levels of acidification (by\nDevelopment Fund -\nreference to their current emission and deposition\nlevels, and relatively small impact on deposition levels\nin the rest of Europe) would allow for considerable\nextra development in these regions on the basis of the\nin areas\nEC legislation already adopted. However,\nwithin these regions where critical\nloads are already\nbeing exceeded or are likely to be exceeded, the same\nstria measures as elsewhere should be applied. From the point of view of facilitating optimal\ndevelopment in these regions and greater economic\ncohesion,\nintroduaion of striaer measures would\nallow even greater scope for development in terms of\nboth scale and continuity. Secondly, the lower energy\ndemand and higher energy efficiency envisaged under\nscenario 4 , would also serve to improve the\ncompetitivity of these regions both within the EC and\ninternationally. Table Sgi ves an i ndi cat ion of the overal I EC targets and\ninstruments which should be aimed for by the year\n2000 on the way towards a sustainable situation. Table 9 indicates the measures needed to guarantee\nlevelsof air quality which are not detrimental to health\nand environment. 43\n\n\fFIGURE 4: DEPOSITION OF SO, AND NOx FROM EC-12 SOURCES IN EXCESS OF CRITICAL LOADS IN 2010 ON BASIS OF\n\nTHE \"CONVENTIONAL WISDOM\" SCENARIO (see explanatory box on page 32)\n\n\u00bb. J \u25a0\n\n#1\n\u0442\n\nfl\n\njS. >\u25a0'\n\n\u0418\u0419\u00bb^\u00a71\n\niV'i. /\n\n\u00ab3\n\n/\n\nj\n\n/\n\n/\n\ntr. \u0418\u0428\n\n\\\n\n\u039b\n\n/\ns-J/-\n\n'N. ,\n\nRIVM / CCE\n\nexce. ss CL\nConv. w is 2010\nR\u00e9gion :\nEUROPE\n\npTTyj NO EXCEEOANCE\n\n\u00ed\nS\nO\nI 4\nr\n\u0429\u042c\nCD 4\n1\n\u00caS\u00e1)\n\n200 00\n50000\ntooo oo\n200000\n\nS\n\n2500 00\n\nUnit : eq/ha. yr\n\n/\u25a0\n\nnKiscl\u00eclc: \\ X \\\\ KXM\u00bb\nl>. iU : 27. 1 1. IWI\nlUnurk : CI. vxerv* fcuro \u00bb\net MISS, or l \\\\ in 2010\n\nFIGURE 5: DEPOSITION OF SO, AND NOx FROM EC-12 SOURCES IN EXCESS OF CRITICAL LOADS IN 2010 ON THE\n\nBASIS OF THE \"HIGH PRICES\" SCENARIO ( see explanatory box on page 32)\n\nK\n\n\u00bb\n\nj-y\u00ee\u00bb,\n\nLtH\n\n)\n\n/\n\n/\n\nRIVM/ CCE\n\nD;ii;r. ex CL HP 2010\n\nReiiion :\nEUROPE\n\n] NO FXCEEDANCE\nI s\n) i\nCD ^\n] s\nCH *\n1 s\nI 5\n\n20000\n500 00\n1000 00\n200000\n250000\n\n''\u041c-\u0447. -\n\nv\n\nUnit : eq/Ha. y'\n\nf^\\\n\n1\n\n>7i,' :T -\\_\n\n3\n\n/\n\n/\n\n/\n\nSi\n\n\u0398\n\nUiWik- A:HPK\\m\nI hiK*: 27. il. IWI\nUvimirk : CI. exccv\u00bb Kim \u00bb >\ncm INS. HP in 2010\n\n \n\fExplanatory Notes\n\nCritical Loads\n\nCritical loads have been defined as quantitative estimates of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which, according to\npresent knowledge, significant harmful effects on specified elements of the environment do not occur. Significant harmful effects\nare assumed to occur when critical values of chemical compounds in forest soils and freshwaters are exceeded. A European map of critical loads has been developed at the Coordinadon Center for Effects (CCE) at the Insdtme for Public Health\nand Environmental Protecdon (RIVM) in the Netherlands on the basis of the EMEP grid system ( 150kmxl50kms) and the co\u00ad\noperative mapping exercise undertaken by nadonal administradons in 1990 in the framework of an UN-ECE programme. \"Mapping Critical Loads in Europe\u201d , J-P. Hettelingh, R. Downing, PAM. de Smet, 1991 , CCEIR1VM. The RAINS model\n\nThis is a simulation model specially developed, using GEOMAN software, at the International Institute for Applied Systems\nAnalysis in Laxenburg, Austria (HASA). RAINS stands for \"Regional Acidification Information and Simulation\u201d. As used for this Programme, the RAINS model combines information on long-range transboundary air pollution provided by\nEMEP (the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme of UN-ECE) with\n-\n\ninformation about cunem and projected energy use, agricultural activity and emissions of S02, NO, and NH3 on a country-by-\ncountry basis;\n\n- emission control technologies and abatement costs;\n- current plans for reductions of S02 and NOi by the year 2000. Alcamo. J. , Shaw, R. , and llordijk, L\u201e eds. (1990). The RAINS Model ofAcidification: Science and Strategies in Europe, Kluwer,\nDordrecht, The Netherlands. The Maps used in the Programme\n\nThe maps found in this document indicate the extent to which actual and projected depositions of S02 and NO, exceed determined\ncritical loads. These exceedances reflect the difference between the CCE/RIVM critical loads maps for Europe and maps of acidifying\ndepositions of S02 and NO, developed for EC-12 and whole of Europe using the RAINS model referred to above. The two energy\nscenarios used are taken from the Commission\u2019s Communication \u201cEnergy in Europe: Energy for a New Century\u201d (July 1990). While the aforementioned energy scenarios, when jxiblished, did not take account of the re-unification of Germany, the maps\nprovided in this Programme relating to the pan-European situation do take account of the current plans for reductions of S02 and\nNO, up to the year 2000 in the former GDR. Acknowledgement\nThe European Commission wishes to acknowledge the facilities and assistance afforded by the Coordination Center for Effects\nat RIVM in the preparation of the maps used in this programme. 45\n\n\fTable 8 : ACIDIFICATION\n\nOBJECTIVE\n\nEC TARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nACTIONS + TIME-FRAME\n\nSECTORS/ACTORS\n\nNOxl )\n\nno\n\n\u2022 stabilization atEC level \u00e9missions in\n\n* actions listed in Table 7 on global scale\n\nexceedance\n\n1994 ( 1990 level) #)\n* 30% r\u00e9duction in 2000\n\nalso apply for NOx and SOx\n\nSOx 1 )\n\nNH, (ammonia)\n\never\n\nof\n\ncriticai\n\n* 35% at EC level r\u00e9duction of\n\u00e9missions in 2000 ( 1985 level)\n\n* proposals forproductsiandardsforcoal,\nfuel oils and residuals before 1995\n\n\u2022 variable targets in accordance with\n\nproblems identified in regions\n\n\u2022 Inventory of NH^ emissions + trends\nbefore 1994 ; standards on new farm\nbuildings before 1996\n\nGeneral\nVOCi\n\n* 10% reduction of man made\n\nloads and\n\nemissions in 1996\n\n* 30% r\u00e9duction ( 1990 level) in 1999\n\n* reductions in transport sector - idem in\nindustry solvents and paints , and\nchemical industry\n\nDioxins\n\nlevels\n\n* 90% reduction of dioxins emissions\nof identified sources by 2005 ( 1985\nlevels)\n\n* Directive (revision) on standards for\nmunicipal waste incineration plants\nbefore 1994\n\nEnergy\nTransport\nAgriculture\nIndustry\nTourism\nEC + MS + Energy\nand Industry\n\nMS + LAs + EC\nEEA + AGRI\n\nEC + MS +\nIndustry\n\nEC + MS\n\n* proposal for Directive on incineration\n\nEC + MS\n\nof hazardous waste: 1992\n\nHeavy metals\n\n* at\n\nleast 70% reduction from all\npathways ofCd , Hg and Hr emissions\nin 1995\n\n* Integrate*! pollution control and rcvised\n\nBAT\n\nEC + MS + LAs +\nIndustry\n\nI)\n1 )\n\nTarget already set by EC\nb 1990 the Commission has presented a set of scenarios on energy demand and supply and their consequences for NOi. SO, and CO, emissions. On the basis\nof computer calculations with the RAINS model, regions listed under objectives 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds would still have room for considerable\ndevelopment from the point ofview of acidification. However, where areas within these regions would reach or exceed the critical loads, further reductions over\nand above those provided for in the existing EC legislation will require to be introduced, b all other EC- regions the reduction targets as listed should apply without\nany exceptions requiring a substantial decrease in energy demand through higher efficiency and increased energy savings. OBJECTIVES\n\nTARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nACTIONS\n\nTIME-FRAME\n\nACTORS\n\nTable 9: AIR QUALITY\n\n* All\n\nshould\n\npeople\n\nbe\neffectively protected against\nrecognized health risks from\nAir Pollution\n\n* implementation and enforcement\nof existing legislation on SO,,\nNO,, Lead, Particulates and Black\nSmoke\n\n* identification of existing or potential\n\nbefore 1995\n\nproblems\n\n\u2022 proposais for amendmentsofexisting\n\nid\n\nlegisUUen\n\nEC + MS +\nEEA\nEC + MS\n\n* Permitted concentration levels\nof air pollutants should take\ninto account the protection of\nthe environment\n\n* Extension of the list of\nregulated substances which\ncause pollution and danger to\npublic health\nthe\nenvironment\n\nand\n\n* WHO values become mandatory\n\nat EC level\n\nFor Ozone (O,):\n\u2022 for health protection: current\nlevels if not exceeding the mean\nvalue over 1-hour of 175 pg/m 5\nand the mean value over 8-hour\nof 110 j!g/m*\n\n\u2022 for protection of vegetation : a\n200 pgjm\u2019 mean value over 1 -\nhour and a 65 pg/m\u2019 mean value\nover 24 hours should not be\n\nexceeded\n\nFor Carbonmonoxide\nCadmium (Cd):\n\u2022 knowledge of existing levels and\n\n(CO) and\n\nsetting of norms\n\n\u2022 compliance with norms for\n\nconcentrations\n\nFor other substances, such as heavy\nmetals, organic compounds and\ndeposition of Sulphur and Nitrogen:\n* knowledge of existing levels\n\n* different targets according to\ndifferent existing situations\n\n0\n\n* Air quality monitoring and control of\nconcentration levels with regard to\nnorms on all substances covered by\nlegislation\n\nnot later than\n1998\n\nMS + LAs\n+ EEA\n\n* Directive\n\nin 1992\n\n\u00a3C + MS\n\n* identification of potential or existing\n\nbefore 1997\n\nproblems\n\nEC + MS +\nEEA\n\n* identification of potential or existing\n\nbefore 1999\n\nid\n\nproblems\n\n\fspecies,\n\n5. 3 Protection of Nature and Bio-diversity\nSince the Industrial revolution and more particularly\nilution and more particularly with consequential extinction in the case of some\nover the past half-century, mankind has been whittling\nf, mankind has been whittling\naway steadily attheecological baseofthe living world. igical baseofthe living world. In many instances the damage being carried out to\nJamage being carried out to\ncomplex living systems is irreversible. is irreversible. The Community strategy will be aimed at\nthe\nmaintenanceofEuropeanbiodiversityprimarilythrough\nsustainable land management in and around habitats\nIn spite of measures taken by international agencies,\nof Community and wider importance. An interrelated\n-n by international agencies,\nthe Community and individual member states,\nthe\nthe\nnetwork of habitats, based on the concept for Natura\ndividual member states,\nmajor threats to nature conservation and maintenance\nDnservation and maintenance\n2000 , should be created through the restoration and\nof biodiversity persist and in some areas are increasing. Jin some areas are increasing, maintenance of habitats themselves and of corridors\nHabitats are converted to human uses and the species\nbetween them. The creation and maintenance of this\n) human uses and the species\nthat occupy them are made homeless. Much of the\nnetworkwillbeverymuchdependentonhowcarefully\ntade homeless. Much of the\ndevelopment which has occurred and is continuing to\ntransport, agricultural and tourist policies are shaped\noccurred and is continuing to\ntake place is in contradiction to mankind's fundamental\nand pursued in the future. ion to mankind's fundamental\ndesire to live in harmony with nature and to enjoy and\nderive pleasure from it. Figure 6 outlines the strategic approach to protection\nof nature and biodiversity. The case for preserving nature and biodiversity goes\nbeyond this: in the first place, it is a necessary element\nin the overall maintenance of the ecological balance;\nfurthermore, nature provides an invaluable genetic\nbank which is essential\nto medical , biological ,\nagricultural and other scientific progress. For most wild species of flora and fauna the splitting up\nand isolation of habitats, mainly because of\ninfrastructural worksfincluding high-tension electricity\ncables), pose the greatest threat. If habitats become too\nsmall and if connecting zones between them are\nblocked or lost, essential migration may be precluded,\n\nTable 1 0 sets out the targets for 2000 and the instruments\nnecessary in the short run to have the Network and the\nsurveillance of the European biodiversity partly\noperational in the year 2000. Apart from protecting nature and bio-diversity in the\nlarge-scale dimension which is inferred in the\npreceeding paragraphs, it behoves national , regional\nand local authorities, enterprises,\nlandowners and\nhouseholders to maintain and enhance the natural\nbeauty, parks and gardens in their own jurisdiction or\nneighbourhood. FIGURE 6 : DIAGRAM ON NATURE CONSERVATION\n\nNATURE CONSERVATION\n\nINFORMATION\n\nI\n\n- Public awareness programme\n- Environmenlal Education\n\n1\n\nBIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\n\nI\n\nLAND USE MANAGEMENT\n\nSUSTAINABLE\nDEVELOPMENT\n\n- ELA for programmes etc. - Reform of Structural Funds\n- Reform of CAP\n- New sustainable policy for\n\nSUSTAINABLE USE\nOF SPECIES\n\n- Tcairism\n- Transport\n- Energy\n- Extractive industries\n- Forestry\n\n- Trade r\u00e9gulation\n- Sustainable fishing\n- Sustainable breeding and use\nof exploitable species\n\nCONSERVATION OF\nNATURAL HABITATS\n\n- European Network based on Habitat\ndirective (Natura 2000)\n- LIFE (ACNAT-MEDSPA-NORSPA)\n\nPROTECTION OF\nENDANGERED SPECIES\n\n- Habitat Directive\n- LIFE (ACNAT)\n- Birds Directive\n- CITES\n\nMONITORING AND JNVENTORY\n\nENVIRONMENT AGENCY\n\n47\n\n\fTable 10: NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY\n\nTARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nINSTRUMENTS\n\nTIME ER AME\n\nSECTORS/ ACTORS\n\nMaintenance of biodiver\u00ac\nsity through sustainable\ndevelopment and manage\u00ac\nment in and around natural\nhabitats of European and\nglobal value: and through\ncontrol of use and trade of\nwild species\n\n1. Maintenance or restoration of\nnatural habitats and spedes\nofwild fauna and flora at a\nfavorable conservation status\n\n\u2022 Habitat directive\n\n1992 =>\n\n\u2022 Updating of Directive 79/409/\n\nongoing\n\nEEC on wild birds\n\nAgriculture Forestry,\nFisheries Transport\nTounsm Energy Industry\n\nEC. M5. LAf. NGOs. Farmers\n\nEC + MS + LAs\n\n2. Creation of a coherent\nof\n\nnetwork\n\nEuropean\nprotected sites\n\n* setting of\n\ncriteria\n\nfor\nidentification of habitats ,\nbuffer zones and migratory\ncorridors\n\n- Natura 2000 : flagship\nprogrammes of\ncarefully\nselected and managed natural\nareas within the EC\n\n3. Strict control of abuse and\n\ntrade of wild species\n\n\u2022 action programmes for the\nefficient conservation and\nthe sites\nmonitoring of\ndesigned for Natura 2000\n\n\u2022 Inventory. monitoring\nsystems , and recovery plans\nand\nendangered\nfor\noverexploited species\n\n* regulations\n\nconcerning\nInternal and International trade\nof endangered species\n\n* International Conventions\n(Biodiversity, Alpes , Regional\nagreements under Bonn\nConvention)\n\n* Reform of CAP (notably zonal\nprogramme* for support of\nenvironmentally friendly\nagricultural practices)\n\n1992-1993\n\nId + N'GOs + Farmers\n\n1991-1993\n\n1991-1992\n\nId\n\nId\n\n1992 =>\n\nId + UNEP (OTES)\n\n1992 =>\n\nMS + EC + UNEP\n(CITES + BONN\nCONVENTION)\n\nongoing\n\nEC, MS , LAi\n\n* Environmental assessment oi\n\n1995 ==>\n\nMS. LAs , EC\n\nplans and programmes\n\n\u2022 Programmes for promorion of\n\n1992 =>\n\nId + NG0s\n\npublic awareness\n\n* Measures to maintain and\n\nprogressive\n\nEC, MS + forest-owners\n\nprotect forests\n\nH\n\n\f5. 4 Management of Water Resources\n\nWater is one of the elementary sources of life. Water\nquality is also an indicator of the general quality of the\nnatural environment. Without water, a harmonious\nand sustainable maintenance or development of socio\u00ac\neconomic activities is not possible. Good quality\nwater is available only in limited quantities at a given\ntime and place. According to recent Eurostat/OECD\nstatistics,\nthe mean annual withdrawal per capita\n(including water for irrigation purposes) for EC-12 has\nrisen from 590 mJ in 1 970 to 650 m* in 1 975, 750 mJ\nincrease of\nin 1980 and 790 mJ in 1985 - an overall\nabout 35% over a period of 1 5 years. Withi n the EC, the\nannual withdrawal rate per capita varied from 200-\n300 mJ\nin Italy,\nin Luxembourg to 1000-1200 mJ\nPortugal and Spain in the late 1980s. For the purposes\nof improving the quality of life and as a condition for\nachieving sustainable development, it is essential to\nsecure sufficient water of adequate quality throughout\nthe Community without upsetting the natural\nequilibrium of the environment\n\nCommunity policies, accordingly, must aim at\n\nprevention of pollution offresh and marine surface\nwaters and groundwater, with parti cular emphasis\non prevention at source;\n\nrestoration of natural ground and surface waters\nto an ecological ly sound condition, thus ensuring\n( inter alia) a suitable source for extraction of\ndrinking water;\nensuri ng that water demand and water supply are\nbrought into equilibrium on the basis of more\nrational use and management of water resources;\n\nManufacturing industry (processing), the energy sector\n(cooling), the agricultural sector (irrigation) and the\ntourism sector (dri nking and bath ing) are very dependent\non the availability of good quality and sufficient\nquantities of water, but are at the same time the main\ncontributors to the pollution of water. Table 1 1\nindicates the overall objectives on water\nquantity and water quality to be realized in the long\nterm, the targets to be reached i n the year 2000 and the\nactions needed in the shortterm. They are in line with\nthe programme of action outlined in the The Hague\nDeclaration on the future Community Groundwater\nPolicy as agreed at the EC Ministerial Meeting on 26\nand 27 November 1 991 l,). ***\n\nas confirmed by a Council Resolution on 12. 12. 1991 , OJ N C 59, 6. 3. 1992\n\n49\n\n\fTable 11 : WATER QUANTITY AND WATER QUALITY\n\nOBJECTIVES\n\nEC TARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nACTIONS\n\nTIMEFRAME\n\nACTORS\n\nQuantitative\nAspects\n\nGroundwater &\n\nSurface fresh\n\nwater\n\nSustainable use of\nfresh water resources\n\n: demand for water\nshould be in balance\nwith its availability\n\n\u2022\n\npermanent\n\n- Preveni\novcrdraft\nInt\u00e9gration of resource\nconservation\nand\nconservation\nsustainable use criteria into\nothcrpolicics , including , in\nparticular, agriculture and\nland use planning, but also\nindustry (development,\nlocation and production\nprocedures)\n\n- Mariced reduction ofpollu \u00ac\ntion of both groundwater\nand fresh surface water\n\n- Groundwater : to prevent\nall pollution from point\nsources and to reduce\npollution from diffuse\nsources according to best\nenvironmental practices\navailable\nand\nbest\ntechnology\n\nQualitative\nAspects\n\nGroundwater\n\n- To maintain the\nquality ofuncontami-\nnated groundwater\n- To prevent further\ncontamination of\ncontaminated\ngroundwater\n\n- To restore contami \u00ac\nnated groundwaterto\na quality required foi\ndrinking water pro\u00ac\nduction purposes\n\nSurface water\n\n- Fresh water\n\n- Marine water\n\n- Surface water: quality\nimprovement towards a\nbetter ecological quality\nand safeguard of high\nquality where it exists\n\n- Marine water : objectives\nand actions similar to the\nNorth Sea conference to\nother sensitive sea areas of\nthe EC\n\nTo maintain a high\nstandard of ecological\nquality with a biodivers\u00ac\nity corresponding as\nmuch as possible to the\nunperturbed state of a\ngiven water\n\nReduction ofdischarges\nof all substances , which\ndue to their\ntoxic\npersistence or accumu\u00ac\nlating impact could\nnegatively affect\nthe\nenvironment, to levels\nwhich are not harmful\nto a high standard of\necological quality of all\nsurface waters\n\n50\n\n- Collection and updating of data\n\n1992/3\n\nMS+LAs\n\non groundwater\n- Monitoring and\n\ncontrol\n\nby 1995\n\nid. -\n\nmeasures on groundwater\nIntegrated water management\nand protection ,\nincluding\nlegislation\n\n\u2022 Measures to protect and\n\nrehabilitate aquifers\n\n\u2022 Measures to promote more\n\neffective water use\n\nmid 1993\n\nid\n\nid\n\n\u2022 Economic and fiscal measures\n\nongoing\n\nEC+MS+\nLAs\n\nMS\n\nM5+EC+\n\nsectorsv LAs\nMS + LA\u00bb +\nEC\n\n- Groundwater and surface fresh\nwater - strict implementation\nof the existing directives on\nurban waste water and nitrate\npollution to reduce the input of\nnutrients to the soil, water and\nsediments. With regard to fresh water\nexamination of the need for a\ndirective\nphosphate\non\nreduction. - Elaboration of further specific\nemission standards encourag\u00ac\ning the development of\nproduction processes and\nperformance standards for\nproducts to prevent foreseeable\nnegative effects on water (use\nof best available technology\ncombined with target standards\nto be achieved later)\nInfluence standardization\nbodies byparticipation ofwater\nindustry where concerned\n- Proposals for progressive\nreplacement of harmful\npesticides and progressive use\nlimitations\n\n\u2022\n\n- Economic and fiscal measures\n\n- Surface fresh water : proposal\nfor a directive to be presented. Member Slates programmes\nfor all waters taking into\naccount their specific situation;\npractical measures, partly\nfinanced through national\nenvironment protection funds\n\n- Marine water : further to the\nmeasures to achieve a high\necological quality and to\nreduce surface waterpoUurion:\n* Proposals an maritime trans\u00ac\nport preventing environmental\nfrom shipping\ndamage\nactivities (oil spills,\nloss of\ncargo, reduction ofoperational\npollution) to be developed\n* Surveillance erf geographic\nappropriate\n\nzones with\nmonitoring techniques\n\n* Proposal for a directive on the\nreduction of operational and\naccidental pollution from small\ntonnage boats\n\n* Economic and fiscal measures\n\ncontinuous\n\nMS+LAs\n\n1995\n\nEC\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nEC+MS+\nIndustry +\nstandardi\u00ac\n\nzation\nbodies\n(e. g. CEN)\n\nid\n\nid\n\n1993\n\n\u00a3C+MS\n\nongoing\n\n1992\n\n1997\n\nMS + LAs\n\u2666 EC\nBC+MS\n\nMS\n\n1993 =>\n\nEC+MS\n\nongomg\n\nMS\n\n1993 =>\n\nEC+MS\n\nongoing\n\nMS + EC\n\n\f5. 5 The Urban Environment\n\nIn the Community, about 80% of the population lives\nin cities and towns. The urban areas are thus the places\nwhere the problems of the environment touch most the\nqualityof lifeofcitizens. Demographic trends, including\npopulation, household sizes and space occupancy\npoint towardsever-increasingpressuresin urban areas. Pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, responsibility\nfor the quality of the urban environment and for\nundertaking necessary remedial or improvement\nmeasures wil I be a matter for the competent a uthorities,\nprimarily the local authorities. As far as the Community\nlegislation\nis concerned, some of the environmental\n(e. g. Directives on municipal waste incinerationni and\nwaste water treatment\u00ae) and many of activities it\nundertakes through the Structura I Funds lead inevitably\nto its playing an important role in the development of\ncities. The purpose of the Community policy must\ntherefore be to encourage local authorities to rise to the\nchallenge that the environmental problems of many\ncities and towns pose today, and to assist them to find\nthe best way of doing this. Transport, energy, industry and in some cases tourism\nare the key sectoral activities which impact on the\nquality of the urban environment, and which also\nstand to gain significantly from more rational planning\nand sustainable management of urban areas. In 1 990,\nthe Commission published a Green Paper on the\nUrban Environment\u00ae which suggested a possible range\nof actions in relation to, inter alia,\n\ntown and country land-use planning\noptimal management of industrial and economic\ngrowth, energy consumption, and waste\nrationalization of urban traffic including the\nimprovement of public transport facilities\nprotection and enhancement of the historical\nheritage of cities and towns and provision ofgreen\nspaces. In Figure 7an overall diagram is given which indicates\nclearly the complexity of the urban environment\nsituation and the actors on the scene. As far as the\nconcept ofshared responsibi I ity is concerned, much of\nthe effort wi II fa 1 1 to the industri al, busi ness and transport\nsectors and to individual citizens/consumers. With regard to the matter of objectives, targets and\nactions,\nit is clear that the quality of the environment\nin urban areas will benefit from the goals and measures\noutlined in the tables on the principal target sectors\nand those on air, water and waste. Table 12, hereunder\ndeals with one of the most pressing problems in urban\nareas and which is not directly covered in the other\ntables referred to - noise. More than 16 % of the\npopulation suffers at night time from noise levels,\nmainly resulting from road and air traffic, over leq 65\ndB(A)w. This causes serious health risks. The primary\nobjective should be to remedy this situation, before\ntackling other levels. OBJECTIVE\n\nEC TARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nACTIONS\n\nTIME-FRAME\n\nSECTORS/ACTORS\n\nTable 12 : NOISE\n\n* no\n\nperson\nshould be ex \u00ac\nposed to noise\nlevels which\nendanger\nhealth\nand\nquality of life\n\nNight-time exposure levels in Leq\ndB(A):\n\n* exposure of the population to noise\nlevels in excess of 65 should be phased\nout; at no point in time a level of 85\nshould be exceeded\n\n\u2022 proportion of population al present\nexposed to levels between 55-65\nshould not suffer any increase\n\n* proportion of population at present\nexposed to levels less than 55 should\nnot suffer any increase above that\nlevel\n\nTransport +\nIndustry\n\n* inventory of exposure levels in the EC\n\nbefore 1994\n\nEEA + MS + LAs\n\n\u2022 noise abatanenl programme lo be set up\n\nbefore 1995\n\nMS + LAs\n\n\u2022 further reductions of noise emissions\n(cars,lrucka,aircraft,cranet,mowers ,\netc. ) Directives to be presented\nprogressively , aiming at\nimple \u00ac\nmentation not later than 2000\n\nbefore 1995\n\nEC * MS *\nIndustry\n\n* standardization of noise measurement\n\ncontinuons\n\nEEA + EC + MS\n\nand ratings\n\n\u2022 measures to influence behaviour, such\nas driving cars, flight procedures ,\nindustrial processes operating at night\ntime\n\n\u2022 measures related to infrastructure and\nphysical planning, suchas betterzoning\naround airports, industrial areas, main\nroads and railways\n\nid\n\nid\n\nMS * LAs * EC\n\nMS + LAs\n\n51\n\n\u2122\n\u00ae. '\nm\n\nO) N\u00b0 L 1 63 , 89/369/EEC and OJ N\u00b0 L 203 , 89/429/EEC\nO) N\u00b0L 135, 30. 5. 1991 , 91/271/EEC\ntoon\nCOM (90) 218 of 27 June 1990\nSource: ECMT report on Transport policy and the environment, OECD, Paris, 1990\n\n\u201errn D \u2022,\n\n\fFIGURE 7 : URBAN ENVIRONMENT ( DIAGRAM)\n\nREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT\n\nTOURISM\nCultural h\u00e9ritage\nMobility\n\n\u2022r i r\n\nT\n\nTRANSPORT\nPhysical planning\nPublic transport\nMobility\n\nI\n\nT\n\nINDUSTRY\nENERGY\nPhysical planning\n\nT\n\nURBANISATION\nD\u00e9mographie aspect\nBuilt-up environment\nPoverty\n\n\u00ab JT. \\\n\n\\ m\n'\nCongestion ^ VI\n\nNoise\n\n\u044c\n\nAir quality\n\n/\n\n/\n\nSoil contamination\n\n'kV/,\n\nih\n\u00ef\n\n\\\n\n\\ \u25a0\n\\\n\nWaste\n\nwater\n\n/\n\n/\n\nwaste vr *;\n\n(management)\n/\n\n/\n\n\\\n\n\\\n\nWater\nquality\n\n/ Degradation of \\\nnature\n\nURBAN\nENVIRONMENT\n\n52\n\n\f5. 6 Coastal Zones\n\nThe Community's coastal zones constitute a unique\nenvironmental heritage, with irreplaceable ecological ,\ncultural and economic resources. The whole of the\nCommunity's marine resources depends on its\nenvironmental quality, and moreover\nthis natural\ninterface between land and sea is characterized by\nthe\nextreme fragility. As an indication of scale ,\nCommunity has about 58. 000 kilometers of coastline\nexcluding small islands and inland seas. The pressures exerted on our coasts are increasing :\n\ncoastal regions are striving to make good their\nlagging development;\nthey are subject to incessant net d\u00e9mographie\ngains;\ncoastal tourism is increasingly popular, and can\nbe subject to significant seasonal fluctuations. These and other pressures result in the reduction of\nopen spaces and natural sites and\nsubstantial\nmodifications to the landscape; they can also give rise\nto conflicts in land and sea use, and competition\nbetween local and regional authorities. The Commission 's Communication \" Europe 2000\"1\u201d\ndeals at some length with the environmental i mportance\nand development potential ofcoastal zones and islands. It points out that in many coastal regions, particularly\nthe natural assets of the\nthe less developed ones,\n\n\"( 1 )\n\nenvironment constitute a key aspect of\ntheir\ndevelopment potential ; but that, at the same time,\nthese natural assets are severely threatened by\nurbanisation, and the tourism,\nindustry,\nenergy, agriculture and fisheries sectors, although in\nthe case of the latter sector, a conservation strategy is\nembodied in the Community's Common Fisheries\nPolicy. transport,\n\nThe Council ofMinisters(Environment), in a Resolution\nadopted on 25 February 1 992l2), has requested the\nCommission to propose an overal I Community strategy\nfor the integrated management of coastal zones, with\na view to\nproviding a coherent environmental\nframework for integrated and sustainable forms of\ndevelopment. The proposed strategy will cover the\nentire ambit of the coastal zones, including fore-shore,\ncoastal waters and estuaries, together with coastal land\ninfluence. up to the limit of the marine or coastal\nCertain R & D activities, such as those under the\nCommunity's Environmental Research, MAST and\nFAR/AIR programmes will provide a scientific basis for\nsound ecological management of these zones. In\nappropriate cases, the Community could give financial\nsupport from the Structural Funds, for example in the\ncontext of the proposed Objective 6, to the effective\nimplementation of the strategy. Table 13 indicates the main elements which will be\nincorporated in the strategy. OBJECTIVE\n\nEC TARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nINSTRUMENTS\n\nTIME-FRAME SECTORS/ACTORS\n\nTable 13 : COASTAL ZONES\n\n* sustainable de \u00ac\nof\nvelopment\ncoastal zones and\ntheir resources in\naccordance with\nthe carrying capa\u00ac\ncity of coastal\nenvironments\n\n\u2022 higher priority to the environmental\nneeds of coastal zones, through inter\nalia, better coordination between\nrelevant EC policies and between\npolicies at the EC, national and regional\nlevels\n\n* operational framework for integrated\n\nplanning and management\n\n\u2022 development of criteria for a better\nbalance of land use and conservation\nand use of natural resources\n\n* awareness raising of the public,\ncompetent authorities and economic\nsectors\n\n01 COM (91 ) 452 final, 7 November 1 991\n\u00ae OJN\u00b0C 59, 6. 3. 1992\n\na\n\n* framework\n\nintegrated\nof\nmanagement plans on appropriate\nlevels\n\nbefore 1998\n\nMS + LAr + EC\n\n\u2022 better know-how and exchange of\n\ncontinuous\n\nMS + LAs + EC\n\nexperience\n\n\u2022 creation and improvement of data\n\nbases and relevant indicators\n\n* pilot projects on integrated\n\nmanagement of coastal zones\n\nbefore 1995\n\nMS + LAs + EC\n\n1993-1994\n\nMS + LAs + EC\n\n* - information campaigns\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\n- \u00e9ducation\n- professional training\n- Financial support for demonstration\nprojects and innovative approaches\n(LIFE)\n\n* Improvement of criteria to ensure\nsustainability of projects and\nprogrammes (incLEIA)\n\nMS + LAs + EC\nTourist sector\nTranspon\nEnterprises\nAgricultura\nGeneral public\n\n1993 =\u00bb\n\nMS + EC\n\n53\n\n\f5. 7 Waste management\n\nThe problems to which waste gives rise are both\nspecific and relatively complex : waste is not only a\npotential source of pollution it can also constitute\nsecondary raw materials. The choice of priorities in\nthis sector has direct economic and environmental\nconsequences and is of direct relevance not only to\nenvironment policies but to technology, economic\nand consumer policies. Management ofwaste generated within the Community\nwill be a key task of the 1 990s. Current upward trends\nin waste generation must be halted and reversed in\nterms of both volumes and environmental hazard and\ndamage. A Community strategy for waste management\nto the year 2000 has already been published\"1 and\nendorsed by the Council\u00ae. The strategy includes a\nhierarchy of waste management options in which\nprimary emphasisis laid on waste prevention, followed\nby promotion of recycling and reuse, and then by\noptimisation of final disposal methods for waste which\nis not reused. Figure 8 i ndicates the strategi c flow-chart\nfor waste management\n\nThis strategy will be pursued and reinforced under this\nProgramme. In particular more attention will be given\n\nto the prevention of waste and solving the waste\nproblems at source, the encouragement of re-use and\nrecycling of waste by, inter alia, separation at source,\nprioritisation of waste streams and the encouragement\nof a rational network of disposal\nfacilities. Further,\napplication of lifecycle analysis will be promoted so as\nto encourage the intervention of all people concerned\nin order to attain targets to be achieved within a limited\nperiod. Hazardous waste requires particular attention\nin relation both to preventing waste and encouraging\nmaximum recycling and the development of an EC-\nwide infrastructure for safe disposal. Economic and fiscal\ninstruments such as charges and\nlevies will be applied, whereever appropriate. The\nlegislative package of measures on waste management\nalso requires to be rounded off by the adoption of\nspecific directives on packaging, the incineration of\nand toxic wastes, on the control and\nindustrial\nrecuperation of landfill sites, and a more general\ndirective on civil liability for damage. Table 14 indicates overall objectives, targets for the\nyear 2000 and the actions required in the short term. 54\n\nSEC (89) 934 final , September 89\n\n01\n\u00ae Council Resolution of 7 May 1 990 OJ N\u00b0 C1 22\n\n\fFIGURE 8:\n\nSTRATEGIC CHART FOR A COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT POLICY ON HAZARDOUS AND OTHER\nWASTES\n\nI THE PRINCIPLES\n\nV\n\nEVALUATION OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT\nPOLICY WTTH RESPECT TO THE PRINCIPLES\n\nFeedback\n- Improvement of r\u00e9gulations ,\ninstruments and action\n\nPREVENTION of\nthe production of\nwaste\n\nBy Technologies :\nQean Technologies\nBy Products :\nEcolabel & Product\ncriteria\nBy Avoidance :\nRe-use\nBy\nchanges :\nProducer and Con \u00ac\n\nBehavioural\n\nsumer\n\nRECOVERY of\nthe waste produced\n\nSafe DISPOSAL\n\nand\n\nSegregation\nsorting\nSeparate collection\nMaterial recycling\n\nR\u00e9duction of dis \u00ac\nposai\n\nEnergy recovery\n\nStricter standards\n\nI\n\nII THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK\n\nIII THE OBJECTIVES\n\nIV THE ACTIONS\n\nGENERAL APPLICATION\nFramework Directive on Waste\n\nSPECIFIC APPLICATION\nA. On specific types of wastes :\n\nStrict implementation of Com \u00ac\nmunity legislation through :\n\nDirective on Hazardous Waste\n\nRegulation on the Control on\nshipments of waste\n\nDirectives on :\nWaste ofls\n- PCBs and PCTs\n\u2022 Sewage sludge\n- Packaging\n\u2022 Batteries\n\nPriority waste streams:\n\n- Used tyre*\n- Haloganated Solvents\n- Used cars\n\nProposal of Directive on Civil\nLiability for damages to the en\u00ac\nvironment\n\n- D\u00e9molition waste\n- Hospital waste\n- Municipal waste\n\nReiiable Data on :\n- Waste production & character\u00ac\n\nistics\n\n- Waste treatment facilities\n\nWaste management\n\nB. On sp\u00e9cifie types of waste :\n\nmanagement operations\n\nMinimization of movements of\n\nDirectives and technical standard:\nfor :\nWaste Incineration (Municipal anc\nIndustrial Waste)\nLandfill disposai\n\nwaste\n\nEstablishment of recycling cir\u00ac\ncuits and opening of market op\u00ac\ntions for recycled materials\n\nDevelopment of data basis on:\nWaste production & character\u00ac\nistics\n\n- Waste treatment facilities\n\nEstablishment of Integrated\nwaste management systems :\nplans , network, facilities\n\nDevelopment of ecological bal \u00ac\nances for evaluation of waste\nmanagement alternatives\n\nDevelopment & application of\neconomic instruments\nspecifically designed towards\nwaste management\nDevelopment and promotion of :\n- Clean Technologies\n- Ecoproducts\n- Segregation <fe sorting systems\n- Rccycling circuits\n- Safe disposal processes\n\nImplementation of self-suffi \u00ac\nciency and proximity principles\n\nDevelopment of product specifi\u00ac\ncations to provide the use of re\u00ac\ncycled materials\n\nDevelopment & application of\ncommunity instruments for fi\u00ac\nnancial support :\n- LIFE ( ACE , NORSPA ,\n\nMEDSPA)\n- Regional funds\n- Research & development funds\n\n55\n\n\fTable 14 : WASTE\n\nOBJECTIVES\n\nEC TARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nACTIONS\n\n\u0418\u041c\u0415-\nFRAME\n\nSECTORS/\nACTORS\n\nMunicipal\nwaste\n\n* overall target: rational\nand sustainable use of\n\nresources\n\n9 prevention of waste\n(closing of cycles)\n\u2022 maximal recycling and\n\nreuse of material\n\n\u2022 safe disposal of any\nwaste which cannot be\nrecycled or reused in\nfollowing ranking order. \u2022 combustion as fuel\n\u2022 incin\u00e9ration\n\n- landfill\n\nHazardous\n\nwaste\n\n* prevention of waste\n(closing of cycles)\n* maximal reuse/recy\u00ac\n\ncling of material\n\n* safe disposal of any\nwaste which cannot be\nrecycled or reused fol\u00ac\nlowing ranking order\n- combustion as fuel\n- incin\u00e9ration\n- landfill\n\nIndustry\nAgriculture\nTransport\nEnergy\nTourism\nEC+MS+LAs\nIndustry\nEC+MS+LAs\nIndustry\nInd + Public+\nEC+MS+LAs\nEC+MS+LAs\nInd+NGOs +\nPublic\n\n\u2022 waste management plans in\n\n\u2022 landfill Directive opera\u00ac\n\nbcforc 1995\n\nMember States\n\ntional\n\n\u2022 directive on packaging\n\n1995\n\nop\u00e9rational\n\n* cleaner technologies +\n\nprogressive\n\nongoing\n\n\u2022 stabilization of quantities of\nwaste generated at EC average\n300kg/capita ( 1985 level\u2122);\non a country by country basis\nno exceedance of 300 Itg/\ncapita\n\n\u2022 recycling/ reuse of paper, glass\nand plastics of at least 50%\n(EC average)\n\n\u2022 Community-wide , infrastruc\u00ac\nture, for safe collection , sepa\u00ac\nration and disposal\n\n\u2022 no export ouiside EC for final\n\ndisp\u00f4sal\n\n* recycling/reuse of consumer\n\nproducts\n\n\u2022 market for recycled materials\n* consid\u00e9rable r\u00e9duction of\ndioxin \u00e9missions (90% r\u00e9\u00ac\nduction on 1985 levels by\n2005)\n\nproduct design\n\n* policy on priority waste\nstreams, stop on landfill\nfor specific wastes (leg \u00ac\nislation + voluntary\nagreements)\n\n* reliable EC-data on waste\ngenerated, collected and\ndisposed\n\n* system of liability in\n\nplace\n\n* \u00e9conomie incentives and in\u00ac\nstruments (tnci. deporit retum\nSystems + vol. agreemmts)\n* standards for dioxin\nemissions from munici \u00ac\npal waste incineration\n\n\u2022 no export outsideEC for final\n\n\u2022 landfill Directive opera\u00ac\n\nbefore 1995\n\ndisposal\n\n* waste management plans iet\n\nup in Member States\n\n\u2022 EC-wide^nfrastructure for\nsafe collection, s\u00e9paration and\ndisposai\n\n\u2022 market for recycled materials\n\ndonal\n\n\u2022 Directive on incineration\nof hazardous waste op\u00ac\nerational\n\n\u2022 policy on priority waste\nstreams, stop on landfill\nfor specific waste\n* cleaner technologies\n* reliable EC-data on waste\ngenerated, collected and\ndisposed\n\n* setting up of bourse de\n\nd\u00e9chets\n\n1995\n\nEC+MS+LAs\n+ EEA\n\n2000\n\nEC * MS\n\nongoing\n\nMS + EC +\nInd. before 1994\n\n\u00a3C+MS+LAi\n\n1995\n\nongoing\n\nongoing\n1995\n\nEC+MS+LAs\nIndusuy\nEC+MS+LAs\nIndustry\n\nEC+MS+lnd\n+LAs+NGOs+\nPublic\nInd. + EC+MS\n\u00a3EA+MS+LAi\nEC+Ind\n\nbefore 1995\n\nEC+MS+lnd\n\nm Based on EUROSTAT and OECD statistics\n\n* system of liability in\n\n2000\n\nEC + MS\n\nplace\n\n* inventory of rislcs\n* \u00e9conomie inceatives md b-\n\u00abramena, bd. vol igreemani\n\n1995\nongoing\n\nEC+MS+Ini\nMS + EC +\nInd. 56\n\n\fChapter 6:\nManagement of Risk and Accidents\n\nWithout prejudice to the overall objective of sustainable development, it is essential that over the remainder of\nthis decade, the assessment and management of risks and the response to accidents and catastrophies should be\nimproved considerably. Set out below is a summary of the main risk areas to which priority will be given under\nthis Programme. 6. 1 Industry - Related Risks\n\nProtection of the environment and human health\nrequires that industry-related risks be tackled on a\nnumber offronts - general industrial activities, chemicals\ncontrols, biotechnology and product-labelling. A\nconsiderable amount of progress has been made as\nrespects both legislation and controls in pursuance of\nthe previous Community action programmes on the\nenvironment, notably\n\n*\n\n*\n\n*\n\nDirective 82/501 /EECm on industrial accident\nhazards, more general ly referred to as the \"Seveso\"\nDirective ;\n\nDirective 67/548/EEOa and subs\u00e9quent amending\nDirectives on the classification and labelling of\ndangerous substances;\n\nDirectives on noxious emissions to air, discharges\nto water and management of toxic and dangerous\nwastes;\n\nDirective 90/21 9/EEC(J> regulating the use of\ngenetically modified micro-organisms in research\nlaboratories and industrial production plants, and\nDireaive 90/220/EEC4' to ensure appropriate risk\nassessment and management when genetically\nmodified organisms are released into the\nenvironment;\n\nNevertheless, much remains to be done, especially in\nrespect of chemicals and biotechnology. Chemicals have become a virtually indispensable part\nof modem life. Almost all produas contain some\nchemicals or are processed or wrapped by means of\nchemicals. More than 7 million chemicals are now\nidentified; about 100,000 are in current use to\nmanufacture produas. Apart\nfrom the increasing\nnumber of chemicals, there has been a phenomenal\ngrowth in the quantities produced. For example, global\nproduaion of organic chemicals alone has jumped\nfrom 7 million tonnes in 1950 to 63 million tonnes in\n1970 and to over 250 million tonnes at present. Most\nchemical agents are potentially hazardous if incorrealy\napplied or if released in large quantities either by\ndesign or accident. Moreover, many chemicals tend to\n\ncontinue as polluting agents long after their original\npurpose is served. The most important industrial uses\nof chemicals are in the processing of paper products,\nprimary metals and food products, petroleum refining\nand the manufacture of textiles, transport machinery,\nrubber and\nelectrical machinery and equipment,\nplastics. Some of the more beneficial aspects of the new\ntechniques of genetic engineering and biotechnology\nhave been referred to in Chapter 4. 1. However, there\nare concerns that this new technology might entail\npotential risks not only related to human health, but\nalso for the total environment. There could be a risk\nthat the widespread use and release of novel , genetically\nmodified organisms could upset the delicate balance\nexisting in nature or even have evolutionary impacts. Consequently, sound management of biotechnology\nboth within the European Community and beyond is a\nmust. Regulation ofbiotechnology cal Is for a delicate balance\nbetween public health/environmental concerns and\nresearch/industrial interests. TheCommunity has taken\na clear, preventive approach in adopting legislation to\nestablish a common set of environmental\nrisk\nassessment requirements and safety measures. This is\nintended to protea the health of citizens and the\nenvironment, as well as ensuring a single unified\nmarket for biotechnology. The Community has also taken steps to mobilize the\nconsiderable technical potential available in the\nEuropean standardisation bodies in pursuit of effeaive\napplication of biotechnology and in support of\nthe standardisation programme will be\nlegislation;\nextended to include methods for identification of\nGMOs, standard testing methods for evaluating\nenvironmental impaa and risk and common evaluation\nprotocols. Figure 9 overleaf provides a flow diagram showing the\nprocess for dealing with existing chemicals. Priority\naaions to be taken over the remainder of this decade\nin respect of\nrisks, chemicals and\nindustrial\nbiotechnology are set out in Table 15, below. 0 )\n\n\u0430\n\na\n\na\n\nO) N\u00b0 I 230, 5. 8. 1982\nO) N\u00b0 L 1 96, 16. 8. 1967\nOJN\u00b0L 117,83. 1990\nOJN-L117, 8. 5. 1990\n\n57\n\n\fFIGURE 9 : FLOW DIAGRAM SHOWING THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR DEALING WITH EXISTING CHEMICALS\n\n2000 High Production Chemicals\n\n- Data collection (up to 1993)\n\n- preliminary assessment\n\n200 Priority Chemicals\n\n- detailed assessment,\n\n(25 per year for 8 years)\n\n50 Chemicals\n\nSubject to\n\ncomprehensive\n\nrisk r\u00e9duction\n\nprogrammes\n\nbefore the\n\nyear\n\n2000\n\n0\n\n\fOBJECTIVES\n\nTARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nMEASURES\n\nTIME-FRAME\n\nACTORS\n\nTable 15 : RISK MANAGEMENT\n\n(a ) Industrial\n\nActivit\u00e9\n\n- Management\nof Industrial\nRisks\n\n- General\n\nEnvironment\nControls\n\n(b) Chemicals\n\nControl\n\nImproved safety standards\n\nComprehensive appraisal ofexperience within\nthe framework of D. 82/501\n\nDevelopment of safety management\nstandards\n\nReport to Council and Parliament, including\nany necessary programme of action\n\n1993/4\n\n1995\n\nEC\n\nEC\n\nImprovement in , and harmonisation\nof, implementation measures\n\nDevelopment of standards for risk assessment\nand management\n\nongoing\n\nStandards\nInstitut es\n\n100% coverage of dangerous\nestablishments\n\nCompr\u00e9hensive review of impl\u00e9mentation\n\n1994 , 1998\n\nEC\n\nImproved management and procedural\nstandards\n\nDevelopment of Standard for envirenmental\nmanagement systems\n\nongoing\n\nStandards\nInsliiutes\n\nEco-audit (progressive)\n\n1994 =>\n\nEnterprise\n\nData\nCollection\n\nEffective notification procedure for\nall chemicals\n\nNotification of all new chemicals\n\nData collection of all existing chemicals. Council regulation on existing chemicals\n\nongoing\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nEC, MS. Industry\nEC, MS. Industry\n\nHazard\nIdentification\n\nMaintenance/improvemeni of existing\nclassification cn Lena\n\nContinual update in the light of scientific and\ntechnical progress\n\nongoing\n\nEC MS. Extension of list of classified substances\n\nongoing\n\nMamjactwas\n+ importers\n\nRisk\nAssessment\n\nCommon principles for assessments\n\nAmendment of Directive 67/548/EEC\n\n1992/3\n\nEC\n\nAssessment of 2000 high production\nvolume chemicals\n\nCouncil regulation on existing chemicals\n\n1993 =\u00bb\n\nAssessment of 500 active substances\nin non-agricultural pesticides\n\nCouncil Directive on non-agricultural\npesticides\n\nRisk\nManagement\n\nStrengthen links between classification\nand control measures\n\nEstablish the Advisory Committee on\nchemicals risk reduction\n\nRisk reduction programmes for 50\npriority chemicals\n\nLegislation + voluntary agreements\n\n1994 =\u00bb\n\n1992\n\n1994 =\u00bb\n\nEC, MS. Industry\n\nEC, MS. Industry\n\nEC +\nIndusuy\n\nEC, MS,\nIndustry\n\nRisk\nR\u00e9duction\n\n(\u0441 ) \u0429\u043e-\ntechnotoev\n\n- Risk manage\u00ac\nment\nfor\nContained Use\nofGMOs\n\n\u2022 Risk manage\u00ac\nment\nfor\nof\nrelease\nGMOs to the\nenvironment\n\n1 00% coverage of all installations and\nactivities\n\nEffective safety measures for use of\nGMOs in research 4 industry\n\nEffective approval procedure for all\nreleases in the Community, both for\nresearch and industry\n\nOversight of export of GMOs to third\ncountries\n\nComprehensive review of impl\u00e9mentation\n\nongoing\n\nEC\n\nDevelopment of more detailed criteria\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nEC + MS\n\nComprehensive review ofimplementation and\ntechnical adaptation\n\nongoing\n\nid\n\nProposai for rtgulaiory instrument\n\n1992\n\nEC\n\n\u2022 Risk\n\nassessment\n\nCommon approaches and principles\nfor environmental risk assessment\n\nDevelopment\nmethodologies\n\nof\n\nrisk\n\nassessment\n\n1993 =\u00bb\n\nCommon\nidentification methods , etc. testing\n\nmethods ,\n\nAssessment and common acceptance of\nmethods\n\n1993 =>\n\nEC + MS +\nStandards\nInstitutes\n(e-g. CEN)\n\nSafe transport of GMO\u2019s\n\nEC l\u00e9gislation\n\n1992\n\nEC + MS\n\n(d) Protection of\nmimais nsrd\nfor ctDerimen-\ntal Dtmxw^i\n\nR\u00e9duction\nin\nanimal experi-\nmentuion\n\n50% reduction in the number of\nvertebrate\nfor\nanimals\nexperimental purposes\n\nused\n\nDirective 86/609/EEC\n(see also Maastricht Declaration on the\nprotection ai animais)\n\nongoing\n\nEC, MS,\nIndustry\n\n59\n\n\f6. 2 Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection\n\nThe Euratom Treaty lays down the Community's\nobjectives and tasks in relation to the peaceful use of\nnuclear energy. Nuclear safety has received special\nattention in recent times both inside and outside the\nCommunity. The increasing credibility of Community\nactions in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, the\nTransnuclear affair and , more recently, the financial\nand technical assistance\nprovided towards\nimprovement of safety measures in the nuclear reactors\nof the countries of the former Soviet Union and Central\nand Eastern Europe have increased the pressure on the\nCommunity to provide leadership in the field of nuclear\nsafety. Within the Community itself, nuclear electricity\ngeneration at present accounts for about 34% of the\ntotal electricity supply produced by about 1 32 power\nstations throughout six Members States of the\nCommunity. This share is larger in Europe than in any\nother part of the world and reaches proportions of 60\nand 70% respectively in Belgium and France. For the\nforeseeable future nuclear installations will continue\nto be an important source of energy in the European\nCommunity, especially in view of its potential\nto\nguarantee independance from third countries for our\nenergy supply and to avoid the environmental impacts\nof more traditional energy sources, notably coal and\noil. Accordingly, a continued effort in nuclear safety\nand radiation protection , as well as appropriately safe\narrangements for management of nuclear waste and\ndecommissioning of obsolete plants, will be necessary. In recent times there also has been increasi ng evidence\nof a radiological significance of exposure of\nthe\npopulationto indoor radon concentrations. In February\n1990,\nthe Commission issued a Recommendation\nfollowing the principles laid down by the International\nCommission on Radiation Proteaion ( ICRP) taking\naccount of the most recent data on radon111. In order to deal in a global way with all these types of\nexposures, the Euratom Treaty calls on the Community\nto establish uniform safety standards to protea the\nhealth of workers and of the general public and ensure\nthat they are applied. This task includes regulatory,\ntechnical and informative aspeas. Basic safety standards were first issued in the form of\nDireaives in 1959. These provide the basis for a\ncomprehensive Community policy on radiation\nproteaion, especially as the basic safety standards\napply to praaically any aaivity which might involve a\nrisk to the population ,\nto workers and to the\nenvironment, caused by irradiation or contamination. These standards apply at present to about 900,000\n\nworkers throughout the Community in different sectors\nusing ionising radiation , such as the nuclear power\nindustry and medical ,\nindustrial and research\napplications. Because nuclear research and nuclear technology are\nareas of rapid change and since there are still many\ndevelopments to come in radiobiology and radio\npathology,\nit has always been considered important\nthat the safety standards be kept up to date. They have\nbeen updated several times since 1 959, the last occasion\nbeing in 1984. The Commission has submitted a\nproposal to the Council of Ministers for a Directive to\nupdate the basic safety standards and to provide a\nrigorous system of prior authorisation and control of\nmovements of radioactive wastes from origin to final\ndestination point121. Following the accident at Chernobyl in April 1 986 the\nCommunity adopted common food controls131 in order\nboth to protea the health of the Community's citizens\nand to avoid internal\ntrade conflias. A Council\nthe\nRegulation of March 1990\u201c\u2019 provided for\ncontinuation of these controls and established a\nmechanism to govern the progressive return to normality\nthereafter. Regulations have also been made in regard\nto intervention levels for all potentially important\nradionuclides in foodstuffs, including baby-foods, dairy\nprocedure and liquid foodstuffs, to be applied in the\nevent of any future accidents. The set of rules now in\nforce are reckoned to constitute a complete proteaive\nsystem as far as food stuffs are concerned. The Chernobyl accident also demonstrated that the\nprovision of information at international , national and\nlocal\nlevel had to be improved. Two major measures\ntaken by the Community in this respea since then are\n\n(i) A rapid information system, ECURIE, established\nin December 1987(S); this system is compatible\nwith an analogous system set up by IAEA in the\nframe of the Convention on early notification of\nnuclear accidents. (ii) A Direaive, adopted in November 198914*, on\ninforming the general public about health\nproteaion measures in the event of a radiological\nemergency;\nthis Direaive and a subsequent\nCommunication define the content of the\ninformation to be provided to the population\nunder normal circumstances and in case of an\n\nemergency. The Community has also undertaken a series of\nmeasures in the area of public information that include\nthe publication and distribution of handbooks,\n\n60\n\n0)\n\nm\n\u00ae\na\n*\u2022\n\"\n\"\n\nOJN\u00b0L 80, 273. 1990\nCouncil Directive 92/3/EURATOM of 3 February 1992\nOJ N\u00b0 L 371 , 30. 12. 1987 - OJ N\u00b0 L 21 1 , 22. 7. 1989 - OJ IM\u00b0 l 101 , 13. 4. 1989\nOJN\u00b0L 82, 293. 1990\nOJN\u00b0L 371 , 30. 12. 1989\nOJN\u00b0L 357, 7. 1 2. 1989\n\n\fbrochures and videos aimed at media professionals\nand the public at large. it\n\nIt is particularly important to the nuciear energy sector\nthat public confidence in it be maintained or even\nenhanced. For this purpose it is essential not only that\nthe industry operates to acceptably high safety standards\nbut also that\nis seen to do so. This will require\nwidespread public information from credible sources. The national authorities and the utilities themselves\nhave the primary role in this regard. However, the\nEuratom Treaty entitles the Commission to verify the\noperation and efficiency of environmental monitoring\nfacilities installed in Member States. This right was\nexercised occasional ly in the early sixties. In December,\n1989 the Commission decided to resume its activities\nin this field. To date , visits have been made at the\nPhilippsburg nuclear power station (Germany) and at\nthe facilities for controlling the environmental\nradioactivity of the Luxembourg Ministry of Health;\nthis programme will be stepped up considerably in the\nperiod up to 2000. for\nmeasuring discharges of radioactive effluents and for\nenvironmental monitoring will be carried out at the\nrequest of a Member State or on the initiative of the\nCommission. Particular importance will be attached to\nthe inspection of facilities associated with sites of\nmajor public concern. Inspections of equipment\n\nNuclear installations of the first generation are at this\nstage becoming obsolete or are programmed to be\ndecommissioned in the near future. Since this process\nwill continue as long as nuclear power plants are used\nfor energy production, it is imperative that satisfactory\nradiation protection criteria for dismantling nuclear\ninstallations,\nincluding the recycling of the materials\nand for restoration of nuclear sites be adopted and\nimplemented as a matter of considerable urgency. Among the various actions aimed at\nimproving\npreparedness in the event of a nuclear accident, a\nnumber of Community initiatives on mutual assistance\nin the case of a nuclear accident or radiological\nemergency are already under way. They include regular\nmeetings of experts to work towards better utilization\nofavailable resources in the event of a nuclear accident\nor radiological emergency. A first draft of an inventory\nof the resources available to counteract the effects of\noccurrences of this type has already been prepared. Apart from performing specific tasks, the meetings are\nin themselves creating a ready network of\ncorrespondents from the competent authorities of the\nMember States to provide for optimum mutual\nassistance within the Community should the need\narise. A special effort will be made in the field of information\nand education of the public on radioactivity and\nradiation protection aspects. In particular, in primary\nand secondary education, pedagogical support material\nwill be made available for teachers in an extended\nproject. Suitable training of young scientists, medical\npersonnel and other workers dealing with ionizing\nradiation will continue to play an important role in\nradiation protection. Several support actions are at\npresent under consideration,\nincluding a training\nbrochure for transport workers who transport\nradioactive material or waste, a videotape for general\npractitioners and graduating medical students on\nradiation protection in radiodiagnosis,\ninformative\nbrochures for dentists, etc. in the field of management of radioactive\nFinally,\nwastes a number of signals indicate that the time has\ncome to initiate work on a Community-wide strategy\nthat embraces all types of radioactive waste including\nindustrial and sanitary waste generated outside the\nnuclear fuel cycle. Such strategy should have as an\noverriding goal of assuring the protection of the\nenvironment, workers and population includingfuture\ngenerations. The preparatory work will\ntake into\nconsideration the existing Community instruments as\nwell as the implication of the Internal Market for the\nmanagement of radioactive waste. A key element ofthe strategi c plan wi 1 1 be a Community\nDirective that will modify the basic safety standards for\nradiation protection to cover transfers of radioactive\nwastes. The Directive is already in an advanced state\nof preparation and will extend to radioactive waste the\nexisting Community provisions on shipments of\nhazardous waste. According to the proposal under\ndiscussion all movements of radioactive waste will be\nsubmitted to a rigorous system of authorisation and\ncontrol from their origin to their final destination. Table / 6 indicates the objectives, targets and measures\ntoapplyovertheremainderofthisdecade. In summary,\nthe Community will continue to improve standards of\nnuclear safety and radiation protection in order to\nmaintain its excellent\nrecord ; and as an essential\ncomplement,\nthe Community will continue to\ncontribute to mitigation of the consequences of the\nChernobyl accident and to upgrading the safety of\nnuclear installations in the countries of the former\nSoviet Union and in Central and Eastern Europe. This\nlatter aspect is dealt more fully with in the chapter\ndealing with international co-operation. 61\n\n\fTable 16 : NUCLEAR SAFETY\n\nOBJECTIVES\n\nTARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nMEASURES\n\nTIME - FRAME\n\nACTORS\n\n(a ) Upgrading of\nsafety measures\n\nUpdate existing Community Basic\nSafety Standards according to the\n1990 ICRP recommendations\n\nAmemiment of Directive 80/83 6\u00c6URA TOM\n\n1992 =>\n\nEC, MS\n\nKeep BSS up to date with scientific\ndevelopments and latest ICRP\nrecommendations\n\nAs above\n\nongoing\n\nECMS\n\nHarmonise Community nuclear\nsafety requirements\n\nDevelop and implement CouncO decision of\n25. 07. 1975\n\nongoing\n\n\u00a3CMS\n\nExtend Community safety culture to the\ncountries of the former Soviet Union\nand Central and Easton Europe\n\n- Technical Assistance Programmes\n- Extend G-24 coordination to include the\n\n1991 =>\n\n1991 =>\n\nEC, MS, Ind. EC. G-24\n\ncountries of the former Soviet Union\n\nInternational Framework Conven-\ndon\n\nActive supportto the IAEA in the preparatory\nwork\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nEC, IAEA\n\nR\u00e9activation of a Treaty provision\n\n-Define v\u00e9rification objectives and goals\n\n1991 =\u00bb\n\nEC\n\n-Implemenlation\n\nongoing\n\nEC + MS\n\nComplete BSS to include transfers\nof radioactive waste\n\nSuppl\u00e9ment Amendment of Directive\n80/836/EURATOM\n\n1992 =>\n\nEC, MS\n\nStrategic management plan for all\nradioactive waste\n\nRadiation protection education in\nprimary and secondary school\n\nImprove quality of public\ninformation\n\nEstablish, adopt and implement strategic plan\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\n- Handbook for teachers\n\n\u25a0Brochures, videos\n\nStanding conference on health and safety in\nthe nuclear age\n\nPreparation and publication of a journalist's\nguide to nuclear power\n\nRecommendation for a harmonised approach\nto public information on indoor radon\nexposure !\n\n1992\n\nongoing\n\nongoing\n\n1992\n\n1993\n\nEC, MS. Indusuy\n\nEC, MS\n\nid\n\nEC\n\nEC\n\nEC\n\n(b) V\u00e9rification of\nmonltoring Ins \u00ac\ntalla lions article 35\n- EURATOM\n\n(c) Strategy on\nwaste manage \u00ac\nment\n\n(d) Enhancement\nof public Informa\u00ac\ntion and education\n\n(e) Adequate train\u00ac\ning In radiation\nprotection\n\nImprove quality of ionising of\ndifferent professional groups\n\nCourses in different fields of radiation\nprotection and nuclear safety\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nEC\n\n0\n\n\f6. 3 Civil Protection and Environmental Emergencies\n\nDuring the period of this Programme, this aspect of the\nCommunity's activity will be stepped up both as a\npractical contribution to the creation of a People's\nEurope and, more importantly, to reflect political and\neconomic developments within and outside the\nCommunity. Two particular aspects will determine the choice of\npriorities in this area :\n\nfirstly, the need to improve the general state of\nreadiness and the operational capacity of civil\nprotection services for the purposes of securing\nhuman safety in the event of natural and\ntechnological disasters;\n\nsecondly, the need to improve emergency response\nin the face of growing risks arising from large\nindustrial concentrations, and the production,\nstorage and transportation of toxic or hazardous\nsubstances and wastes;\nin addition, there is a\nspecial need to intensify international co-operation\nto improve response mechanisms in the case of\ngrave environmental catastrophies such as forest\nfires and oil spills which, because of scale, often\nexceed the capacity of a single state to respond\neffectively. Inoperational terms, itwill be necessary to pressahead\nwith further improvement and refinement of the\nmutual assistance procedures and arrangements in\n\nrespect of both natura I a nd technologica I catastroph ies,\nincluding accidental pollution ; optimisation of\ninterventions in the case of emergencies and\ncatastrophies in third countries will require improved\ncoordination of the efforts of the Member States within\nthe Community and increased co-operation with\ninternational organisations ( IMO, UNEP,\npertinent\nUNDRO, etc). More satisfactory mobilization of both\npersonnel and material resources could be achieved\nby\n*\n\nthe establishment of Task Forces to respond to\ndifferent types of emergency;\nincreasingthe range and quality oftraining courses\nand simulation exercises;\nimproving information and communication\nsystems for more rapid and efficient transmission\nof information, instructions and decisions between\nthe key players in emergency situations. *\n\n*\n\nThe Community - with the Commission acting as\nfacilitator - will continue to develop and improve the\npresent\ninformation network and operational\nprocedures. Furthermore, a renewed effort will be\nmade in the matter of public awareness and education. The designation of the 1 2-month period from June\n1993 as European Year of Civil Protection will offer an\nimportant and timely boost in this regard. Activities\nlaunched in anticipation of and during that year will be\ncontinued systematically at least up to the year 2000\nwhen the UNs international decade on prevention of\nnatural catastrophies closes. 63\n\n\fChapter 7: Broadening the Range of Instruments\n\nOne of the principal strengths of the European Community, as distinct from other international institutions such\nas the United Nations agencies and OECD, is that it is a legislative body; when it acts in a legislative capacity\nits measures are binding on its constituent Member States. Under the first four action programmes, Community\nactivity has predominantly been in the form of Council Directives and Regulations. A great majority of the\nmeasures adopted have been designed to respond to clearly identified problems or to apply controls to certain\nimpact\nprocesses or activities, though there are notable exceptions, such as the measures on environmental\nassessments, protection of wild fauna and flora and access to environmental information. Many of the Directives\nserve the dual purpose of protecting the environment and eliminating distortions of competition within the\nInternal Market\n\nAs a consequence of this legislative activity, the Community and its constituent Member States have achieved\na significant degree of success in containing threats to public health and the environment, which cannot be\nignored and should not be understated , and now have a body of law which, though relatively young and far from\ncomplete, provides a very solid foundation forthe further steps which require to be undertaken in theyears ahead. There will be a continuing need for legislative measures at Community level , particularly in respect of\n\nthe establishment of fundamental\nCommunity commitments to wider international agreements; and\ncommon standards and/or controls which may be deemed necessary or expedient to preserve the integrity\nof the Internal Market. levels of environmental care and protection;\n\nBut it is not feasible to adopt a Directive or Regulation which says :\"Thou shalt act in a sustainabie manner\". Also,\nbecause ofthe broad scope of many of the present-day environment issues and the threats to our biosphere posed\nby current trends in political , economic and social life,\nit is imperative to focus on the causes of environment-\nbased problems in a different manner. It is essential to go to the root of these problems - human activity, human\nvalues in relation to the environment and natural resources and human behaviour and consumption patterns. In order to bring about substantial changes in current trends and practices and to involve all sectors of society,\nin a spirit of shared responsibility, a broader mix of \"instruments' needs to be developed and applied. Environmental policy will rest on four main sets of instruments: regulatory instruments, market-based instruments\ninstruments and voluntary agreements), horizontal supporting instruments\n(including economic and fiscal\n(research, information, education etc. ) and financial support mechanisms. The following elements are important\nto the creation of an extended package : a fuller list of objectives, targets, time-frame and relevant actors is set\nout at the end of this Chapter - see Table 17. 7. 1 Improvement of Environmental Data\nfrom (a)\n\nSatisfactory guardianship of the environment,\nconception of policies to the adoption and application\nof de facto measures, can ultimately be assured only if\nthequantityandqualityofrelevantinformationisgood\nenough. Better knowledge and understanding of the\nfundamental laws which govern the performance and\nevolutionary processes of nature under the influence\nof natural phenomena and human interventions are\nindispensable. Knowledge of nature and natural\nprocesses is still limited; the ongoing scientific debate\nthe greenhouse effect and its possible\nabout\nconsequences offers a striking example of this. Work on the preparation of the Report of the State of\nthe Environment published concurrently with this\nProgramme has hightlighted the lacunae and\ndeficienciesintheavailableenvironmental information\nin the Community and the Member States :\n\n0\n\nin most Member States there is a number of\ndifferent institutions or organisations involved in\ndata collection and analysis; differences in\nnomenclatures, criteria, methodologies and\ninterpretation militate against both compatibility\nand comparability, whether at national , regional\nor Community levels;\n\n(b)\n(b)\n\nthere is a serious lack of base-line data, statistics,\nthere is a serious lack of base-line data, statistics,\nindicators and other quantitative and qualitative\nindicators and other quantitative and qualitative\nrequired to assess environmental\nmaterial\nrequired to assess environmental\nmaterial\nconditions and trends, to determine and adjust\nconditions and trends, to determine and adjust\npublic policies and to underpin financial\npublic policies and to underpin financial\ninvestments;\ninvestments;\n\n(d there is an almost complete absence of the more\n(d there is an almost complete absence of the more\nprecise, quantitative data on human interventions\nprecise, quantitative data on human interventions\nand influences on the environment which are\nand influences on the environment which are\nneeded for meaningful modelling exercises and\nthe optimisation of policy and large-scale\ninvestment decisions;\n\n\f(d)\n\ninformation which is available is often not\nprocessed or presented in a suitable form for\npotential end-users - administrations, enterprises\nand general public - and does not take account of\nthe different\nlevels of sophistication or\nsimplification required, nor ofthe fact that different\ntypes of decision require different types or levels\nof information. In the light of the foregoing, and bearing in mind the\nrelationship between good decisions and good\ninformation, it is imperative that under this Programme\na high level of priority be assigned to\n\u2022\n\nfilling the current gaps in base-line data on the\nenvironment and improving their compatibility,\ncomparability and transparency;\nstandardisation of scientific and technical aspects\nof\ninformation retrieval , collation and\ninterpretation to opti mise the val ue and usefulness\nof data obtained at and between different\nadministrative and business levels and between\ndifferent geographical regions and levels;\nexploiting and strengthening the experiences and\ncapacities of the European statistical system to\ndeliver environmentally relevant statistics on a\nregular basis, which will be comparable to and\nlinked to the traditional official statistics in the\neconomic and social fields;\n\n\u2022\n\n\u2022\n\n*\n\nincreasingthe frequency and improvingthe quality\nofstate ofthe environment reports at local, regional ,\nnational and Community levels. The European Environment Agency : an essential tool\n\nImprovement of environmental\ninformation will\ndemand a combined effort on the part of all relevant\nbodies and levels of administration working in an\neffective partnership. Against this background it was\ndecided to establish a European Agency for the\nEnvironment and the European Environment\nInformation and Observation Network ( 1 ). The task\nassigned to the Agency is to supply those concerned\nwith the Community Environment policy,\nin the\nCommunity Institutions or in the Member States, with\nreliable information, comparable across the European\nterritory. This information will describe the quality and\nsensitivity of the environment, as well as the pressures\nbearing upon it The Agency will operate in conjunction\nwith EUROSTAT and the R & D arms of the Commission. The r6le of the European Environment Agency is seen\nas crucial in relation to the evaluation and dissemination\nof information, distinction between real and perceived\nrisks and provision of a scientific and rational basis for\ndecisions and actions affecting the environment and\nnatural resources. It is imperative, accordingly, that the\nAgency become fully operational as a matter of\nconsiderable urgency. 7. 2 Scientific research and technological development\nWhilegovemment,enterpriseandconsumersrepresent matters of bio-ethics, formulation and promotion of\npriority research programmes, exchanges of data and\nthe essential economic players whose decisions can\nbenefit or impact upon the environment, the range of\nresults and technology transfer,\noptions which can be brought\ninto play will rely\nheavily on the success in identifying cause and effect\nrelationships and in finding appropriate scientific and\ntechnological solutions. In Chapter 2 it is recognised\nthat the ultimate limiting factor for economic and\nsocial development is the tolerance level ofthe natural\nenvironment. Concepts such as environmental\ntolerance and resilience, risk, impact, etc, which are\nessential\nin the formulation of policy, can only be\ndefined and utilized by understanding fundamental\nenvironmental processes operating at the key spatial\nand temporal scales, and how these are altered by\nhuman activity. In each ofthe sectors addressed in this\nProgramme, particular attention needs to be paid to\nopportunities for improving the environment and the\nHowever, it is clear that a substantially increased and\nmanagement of the natural capital stock through the more coherent R & D effort is required in order to\naddress the more far-sighted, cohesive and effective\nbetter use ofexistingtechnologies and the development\nstrategycontainedinthisPolicyandAction Programme. and use of new or improved ones. In essence, EC-level R & D must provide direct support\nfor the following objectives, inter alia,\n\nThe Community already has a significant involvement\nin research and development related to environmental\nproblems and issues. Programmes such as Environment\nand Marine S&T include basic and strategic studies of\nglobal change,\nits possible impacts, ecosystem\ndynamics, natural and technological risks as well as\nthrough cleaner\nimprovement\nenvironmental\ntechnologies, waste management and mitigation of\nindustrial accident risks. Other R & D programmes,\nsuch asthose on biotechnology, agro-industry, energy,\nindustrial materials and information technologies, all\ncontain workontheirrespectiveenvironmental aspects. Considerable achievements have already been made\nin the development of clean technologies and genetic\nengineering, forexample, but a wealth ofopportunities\nand potential new industries awaits exploitation. For\nthe most part, this field will need to be tackled at\ncompany, regional and national levels. The Community\nfor its part, can make important contributions in the\n\n-. Provision of a scientific basis for evaluating state of\nProvision ofa scientific basis for evaluating state o\nthe environment and improved early warning of\nthe environment and improved early warning of\nenvironmental problems. Thisimpliesdevelopment\nenvironmental problems. This implies development\nindices, advanced\nof environmental baselines,\nindices, advanced\nof environmental baselines,\nmonitoring and assessment systems, etc. monitoring and assessment systems, etc. 65\n\n(1 )\n\nCouncil R\u00e9gulation EC/1210/90; OJ L120of 11. 05. 1990\n\n\fImproved understanding of basic environmental\nprocesses and the impacts of human activities. Here, long-term strategic research is required to\nelucidate global change, its possible impacts and\nto define the conditions for environmentally\nsustainable development. Development of a sound basis for regulatory and\nmarket related instruments. This would comprise\nessentially pre-normative R & D concerning public\nhealth and safety, environmental risks and impact\nassessments, environmental audits, chemicals\ncontrol, etc. Development and application of techniques for\nreduction and mitigation of\nprevention ,\nimpact. This would include\nenvironmental\nadvances in environmental biotechnology, new\n\nmaterials, new and cleaner processes, improved\nwaste management and prevention of industrial\naccidents. Work in this area will be directed\nprimarily towards the target sectors identified in\nChapter 4. Finally,\nthe relationships and linkages between\nenvironmental policy and supporting R & D must be\nsubstantial ly strengthened. In order to ensure maximum\ngain from R & D activities,\nimproved information flow\nand feedback between R & D and policy formulation\nwi II be required, as well as a more adaptable approach\nto R & D so as to enable it to respond more directly and\nflexibly to changing policy requirements. Reciprocally,\nit will be important to devise mechanisms whereby\npolicy formulation and implementation can respond\nto changes in scientific knowledge and technological\ncapability. 7. 3 Sectoral and Spatial Planning\n\nSound land-use and structural planning can provide\nthe framework and the ground-rules for the socio\u00ac\neconomic development and ecological health of a\ncountry, region or locality. In the endeavour to achieve\nsustainability, the planning functions and the public\nauthorities in whom responsibility is vested must ensure\nan optimisation of the \"mix* of industry, energy,\nleisure and tourism,\ntransport, human habitation,\nancillary services and supporting infrastructure which\nis consistent with the carrying capacity of the\nenvironment. Integrated planning of this kind will be a particularly\nimportant element in the drive for economic and social\ncohesion in the Community. The achievement of the\nvarious mixes required in different areas and\ncircumstances and at different population levels\ndemand an advanced level of planning and co\u00ac\nordination within the Member States. The establishment of an appropriately comprehensive\nplanning/development/environmental protection\nframework calls for the application of the principle of\nsubsidiarity through decision-making at\nthe most\nappropriate level, for example:\n\nat Member State or Community level where\nnational and regional economic development\nplans or global issues are in question;\nat the level of natural geographical or regional\nunits where regional development, pollution or\nriver-basins are involved and for\ninter-urban\ntransport;\n\n0\n\nlevel\n\nat\nlocal\ngeographical\n\nfor\nimpact. issues which have limited\n\nland-use and structural\nWithin the Community,\nplanning generally follows an identifiable sequence\nstarting with national or regional economic plans and\nending with local physical development and\nenvironmental protection plans. The sequence has\ntwo principal components - the upstream policies or\nplans including control principles and statements of\nintent, and the downstream programmes and projects\nwhich form the basis of action. Given the goal of\nachieving sustainable development\nit seems only\nlogical, if not essential , to apply an assessment of the\nenvironmental\nimplications of all relevant policies,\nplans and programmes. The integration of environmental assessment within\nthe macro-planning process would not only enhance\nthe protection of the environment and encourage\noptimisation of resource management but would also\nhelp to reduce those disparities in the international\nand inter-regional competition for new development\nprojects which at present arise from disparities in\nassessment practices in the Member States. Fi na I ly, i n pursua nee ofthei r commitment to i ntegration\nof policies, the Commission and the Members States\nhave already undertaken - at the Maastricht Summit -\nto taken full account of environmental impact and the\npri nciple of sustainable development in the formulation\nand implementation of measures. 7. 4 The Economic Approach: Getting the Prices Right\n\n*\n\nmakeprovisionintheiraccountsforenvironmental\nrisks and future environmental expenses,\n\nAlthough the value of many environmental assets is\ndifficult to measure in monetary terms and , in the case\nof particularly important or rare elements should not\nbe priced in any event, valuations, pricing and\naccounting mechanisms have a pivotal role to play in\ntheachievementofsustainabledevelopment. Economic\ntake\nvaluations can help economic agents to\nenvironmental\ninvestment or consumption decisions. Where market\nforces are relevant, prices should reflea the full cost to\nsociety of produaion and consumption, including the\nenvironmental costs. Among the measures required to be taken in order to\ndetermine environmental costs with a view to more\nenvironmentally effeaive pricing mechanisms are:\n\nevaluation of the natural and environmental\nresource stocks ofthe Member States in economic\n\nUse of economic and fiscal incentives\nUse of economic and fiscal incentives\nIn order to get the prices right and to create market\nIn order to get the prices right and to create market\nbased incentivesforenvironmentallyfriendlyeconomic\nbased incentives forenvironmentally friendly economic\nbehaviour, the use of economic and fiscal instruments\nbehaviour, the use of economic and fiscal instruments\nimpacts into account when they take will have to constitute an increasingly important part\nwill have to constitute an increasingly important part\nof the overall approach. The fundamental aim of these\nof the overall approach. The fundamental aim of these\ninstruments will be to internalize all external\ninstruments will be to internalize all external\nenvironmental costs incurred during the whole life-\nenvironmental costs incurred during the whole life-\ncycle of products from source through produaion,\ncycle of products from source through produaion. distribution , use and final disposal , so that\nenvironmentally-friendly products will not be at a\ncompetitive disadvantage in the market place vis-^-vis\nIn this\nproduas which cause pollution and waste. respea, two options are possible : a pricing approach\nand one related toquantity. While the Community and\nthe Member States are currently engaged in the former,\nit will be important to study also the extent to which\npossible options such as tradeable permits could be\nutilized to control or reduce quantities. It will be of\nincreasing importance to ensure that the range of\ninstruments will be applied in a cost effeaive way so\nas to avoid unnecessary adjustment costs to the\neconomy of the Community to minimise adverse\ndistributional consequences and to achieve optimum\nenvironmental benefit In developing such instruments,\nit will also be important to consider not only the\npotential impaa on the local and wider environment\nbutalsotheireconomicefficiency and regional impact\n\nterms;\ndevelopment of renewable resource indicators\nfor Member States (and,\nin appropriate cases,\nregions)\nto show the rates at which natural\nresources are used and renewed including\navailability and use of water resources, soil\nformation and erosion , growth and harvesting of\nforests, regional fish populations and catches, etc;\nextension and adaptation of the traditional tools\nof economic statistics on the basis of research at\nnational and European level ,\nincluding\nmodification of key economic indicators, such as\nGNP, so as to reflea the value of natural and\nenvironmental\nresources in generating current\nfor\nand future incomes and to account\nenvironmental losses and damage on the basis of\nassigned monetary values;\ndevelopment of meaningful cost/benefit analysis\nmethodologies and guidelines in respea of policy\nmeasures and aaions which impinge on the\nenvironment and the natural resource stock;\nredefinition of accounting concepts,\nrules,\nconventions and methodology so as ensure that\nthe consumption and use of environmental\nresources are accounted for as part of the full costs\nof produaion and refleaed in market prices. Such\nmeasures must include appropriate checks and\ncontrols so as to ensure market transparency and\nfair competition. To maintain or improve enterprise awareness of\nenvironmental issues, to ensure that all environmental\nexpenses and risks are taken into account, and to\nfacilitate a stewardship funaion of accounts on\nenvironmental topics, enterprises should:\n*\n\ndisclose in their annual reports details on their\nenvironmental policyandaaivities, and the effects\nthereof;\ndisclose in their accounts the expenses on\nenvironmental programmes (this requires a clear\ndefinition of such expenses);\n\n*\n\nA first important category of economic instruments\nconsistofchargesand levies. They are well understood\nand used, for instance in the field of water pollution. They have been developed in the past primarily to\ncreate the necessary funds for clean-up operations and\ninfrastructures such as water treatment installations,\nand will remain important for these and other similar\npurposes such as waste disposal. However, in line with\nthe polluter-pays principle, such charges should be\nprogressively reorientated towards\ndiscouraging\npol lution at source and encouragi ng clean produaion\nprocesses, through market signals. Responsibility for charges and levies on emissions\nfrom stationary sources traditionally has been a task for\nnational and local authorities. According as such\ncharges\nbecome more widespread and have real\nenvironmental impaa and, in consequence, generate\ngreater financial\nincome, some intervention at\nCommunity level may be necessary to ensure that\ncharging systems are designed in a transparent and\ncomparable way, and to ensure that distortions of\ncompetition within the Community are avoided (e. g. in the cases of water and air pollution), especially\nwhere emissions or discharges from mobile sources\nare concerned. 67\n\n\fAs a second category,\nincentives can exert\nfiscal\nconsiderable influence on patterns of consumption\nand behaviour. Environmental considerations are\nin the fiscal area\nalready being taken into account\nwithin the Community : ready examples include the\ndifferentiated duties being applied by the Member\nStates in the case of unleaded and leaded petrol , the\nproposal for a Council Directive on excise duties on\nmotor fuels from agricultural sources1\u2019 1 and the energy/\ncarbon tax envisaged in\nthe Commission\nCommunication \"A Community Strategy to limit carbon\ndioxide emissions and to improve energy efficiency\"\u00ae. This evolution will be encouraged over the period\ncovered by this Programme with a view to an overall\nmodernisation and rationalization of fiscal systems to\nrender them more responsive to the need to protect the\nnatural resource base and the environment. In this\nregard,\nit is now widely accepted as economically\nmore efficient to tax those activities which damage the\nincluding the\neconomic resource structure,\nenvironment, and to reduce the burden of those taxes\nwhich can have a negative effect on employment and\ninvestment. Every care should be taken, however, to\navoid increases in the overall burden of taxation. State aids,\ninvolving direct and indirect subvention\nsystems, form a third category ofeconomic instruments. The Commission has already adopted a framework for\nenvironmental state aids in order to guarantee an\norderly system in the Community which is compatible\nwith the \"polluter pays principle\". This framework will\nbe updated to take into consideration not only the\ngrowing importance of subsidies for particular typesof\nenvironmental expenditure, but also to ensure the\nintegrity of the Internal Market\n\nFiscal d\u00e9ductions to encourage investments in\nenvironmental equipment and clean production\n\nprocesses constitute a particular category of state aids\nwhich is coming into increasing use. Such fiscal\nincentives can be very effect:ve in speeding up the\nintroduction of clean capital equipment, and should\nbe encouraged to facilitate\ntransition\ntowards sustainability. the critical\n\nA fourth category of market-based instruments to be\ndeveloped inthe Community isenvironmental auditing. In the first instance this has to be seen as an internal\nmanagement tool which should indicate performance\non resource management including use of raw materials,\nenergy consumption, productivity levels and waste. It\nshould highlight areasof risk, indicate performance on\nrisk prevention and management and audit levels of\nsafety and hea'th in the work place. For shareholders,\nfinancial and insurance institutions such\ninvestors,\nresource-based audits would provide a performance\nindicator as important as traditional financial accounts. For public authorities and the public at\nlarge,\nenvironmental audits will provide both a compliance\nand performance indicator which can provide a boost\nto overall public confidence. Lastly, an integrated Community approach to\nenvironmental liability will be established. The concept\nof \"shared responsibility\" has an important dual aspect. On the one hand, it is important to share responsibility\nfor preventing further damage to the environment. On\nthe other hand, there is also the need to protect the\ncommon interest in the environment by making sure\nthat, if damage to the environment does occur,\nit is\nproperly remedied through restoration. Liability will\nbe an essential tool of last resort to punish despoilation\nof the environment In addition - and in line with the\nobjective of prevention at source - it wi 1 1 provide a very\nclear economic incentive for management and control\nof risk, pollution and waste. 7. 5 Public Information and Education\n\nThe success of the drive towards sustainability will\ndepend to a very considerable extent on the decisions,\nactions and influence of the general public. But, while\nlevel of\nsurveys show a high , and increasing,\nenvironmental awareness among the general public,\nthe public is considerably lacking in essential\ninformation. In addition to having access to available\ninformation under Council Directive\nenvironmental\n90/31 3/EEO,)\n(due to come into force 31 December\n1 992) and a right to involvement in the assessment of\nenvironmental effects of major projects, it is essential\nthatthe citizen be enabled to participate in the process\nof setting conditions for operating licenses and\nintegrated poll ution control, and be facilitated in judging\nthe actual performance of public and private enterprises\nthrough access to inventories of emissions, discharges\nand wastes and to environmental audits. As regards general\ninformation, a comprehensive\nstrategy will be required to inform the public at large,\nthe social and economic partners, regional and local\nauthorities and non-governmental organisations of the\nobjectives and targets of Community environment\npolicy and of their respective responsibilities and\npotential contributions. This strategy will provide for\nthe creation of structures facilitating the participation\nof citizens and actors in the Commission's actions in\nthis field. These structures could be set up on regional\nand/or local level , taking into account the experiences\ninformation\nof existing networks (the centres for rural\nand the local urban initiative centres). The individual, as a consumer, can make a fully\ninformed and rational choice only if the product\ninformation with which he/she is provided covers all\n\n68\n\n\u03c3 >\n\n\u0428\n\n0)\n\nCOM (92) 36 final, 28. 2. 1992\nSEC (91)1744 final, 14. 10. 1991\nOJN\u00b0L 158/56, 23. 6. 90\n\n\frelevant aspects such as performance,\nreliability,\nenergy-efficiency, durability, running costs, etc, and if\nthis information is given in a neutral form, supported\nby effective and dependable guarantees. The\nCommunity-wide eco-label will make a contribution\nin this respect, but it, too, will require to be developed\nwithin the short-to- medium term and combined with a\nmore global approach to consumer safety and\nenvironmental protection. The importance of education in the development of\nenvironmental awareness cannot be overstated and\nshould be an integral element in school curricula from\nprimary level onwards. The starting point for joint action by the European\nCommunity and the Member States in the field of\nenvironmental education is the Resolution on\nEnvironmental Education of the Council and the\nMinisters of Education meeting within the Council of\n24 May 1 98801. The Resolution states - inter alia - that:\n\n\"the objective ofenvironmental education is to increase\nthe public awareness of the problems in this field, as\nwell as possible solutions, and to lay the foundations\nfor a fully informed and active participation of the\nindividual in the protection ofthe environment and the\nprudent and rational use of natural resources \". This Programme calls for a speeding up of substantive\nimplementation of the Resolution. Without prejudice\nto the Member States' prerogatives in the field of\neducation, environmental studies - whether separate\nor integrated into natural and social science studies or\namalgamated with other studies in preparation for\neveryday life (such ascivics, politics, industrial relations,\nhygiene and health care) - should be included in all\nprimary and secondary school curricula by the year\n2000 at the latest and be listed as a formal examination\noption as soon as possible after that date. In order to\nwork towards those goals it will be necessary to\ninitiate, without delay, the establishment of university\nteacher training\ncourses and summer-schools,\nprogrammes and the publication and development of\nenvironmental literature and teaching aids. 7. 6 Professional Education and Training\n\nCurrent and projected trends in structural and\ntechnological change, in market supply and demand,\nand in market competition can be attributed to a\nsignificant degree to a user-driven market which\nincreasingly is demanding quality in all aspects of both\nproducts and services. The response to this demand is\ndictated by the level of skills and \"know-how\" within\nthe manufacturing and service sectors. Furthermore,\nempirical data in respect of Europe and the U. S. A. indicate that there is a close correlation between the\nproportion of population who undergo a high standard\nof professional and vocational education and training\nand regional prosperity; that in such regions there\ntends to be a demand for higher quality; and that\nproducers of goods and services in those regions are\ncompetitive in wider, even global , markets. These factors, among others, are indicative ofthe need\nfor new or additional ski Its or training in administrations\nand in manufacturing and service industries if both the\nCommunity's environmental and Internal Market\nobjectives are to be met. Specific skills and training\nrequirements emerging from studies (e. g. the FAST\nprogramme) made across the Community include ;\n\nIn the public sector,\n\npolicy, structural and project decision-making\nand management;\nmanagement of water resources;\nenergy conservation and waste disposal in pub ic\ninstitutions (hospitals, power stations, public\noffices, plant and machinery);\nmonitoring ofstandards ofadherence to legislation\narid operating conditionsand of ievelsof pollution;\n\nOJN\u00b0C 177,6. 7. 88\n\noperation of sewage plants and waste water\ntreatment facilities;\nenvironmental impact assessment. In the private sector, additional skills and training\nrequired at all\nlevels, managerial and operational ,\ninclude\n\nin manufacturing industry :\nresearch and\ndevelopment, process management, energy\nefficiency, exploitation of biotechnologies,\nprevention, reuse, recycling and safe disposal of\nwastes, containment and rehabilitation of\ncontaminated sites, transport operations, vehicle\nmaintenance and fuel conservation ;\nin agriculture, horticulture and forestry : nature\nconservation and management, ecologically\nsustainable farming practices, agricultural and\nhorticultural advisers, waste management ,\nintegrated pest control, erosion control and\nprevention and control of fire,\nin the services sector : environment consultancy\n(legal and technical), provision and dissemination\nof information and knowledge (especial to SMEs),\nenvironmental impact assessments, environmental\naccounting and auditing, cleaner and more\nefficient transport and better qual ity tourist services\nand information. In terms of occupations, the needs include biologists\nand chemists, geologists and land surveyors, architects\nand land-use planners, civil, mechanical, electrical\nand production engineers, and environmental\ntechnicians, operatives and training specialists. 69\n\n\f7. 7 Financial Support Mechanisms\n\nWithin the overall context of sustainable development,\nconservation of natural resources and prevention of\npollution and waste and effective application of the\n'polluter pays principle' the policies and actions set\nout\nin this Programme should pay for themselves. Tenaciously pursued, they should increase industrial ,\neconomic and social efficiency and prosperity at no\ngreater cost than more wasteful current practices. As a matter of principle, financial\ninterventions from\nCommunity or public funds must not have the effect of\ndiminishing the fundamental\nresponsibility of the\nrelevant economic 'actors' and must not provide an\nalibi for failure to integrate the environmental dimension\ninto production processes, into choices of individual\nbehaviour and into relevant economic and sectoral\npolicies and programmes. Further, the fact that there\nare financial\ninterventions must not create any\nmisunderstanding that sustainable development is more\nexpensive or less cost efficient than a laissez-faire\napproach. Nevertheless, certain current and prospective financial\nmechanisms have, and will continue to have, a\nsignificant input into the achievement of objectives of\nthe Programme. The Structural Policies\nThe Community's Structural Funds - that is to say the\nEuropean Regional Development Fund ( ERDF), the\nEuropean Social Fund ( ESF) and the guidance element\nof the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee\nFund ( EAGGF)\n- are applied in the Community to\nstrenghten economic and social cohesion and benefit\nthe poorer regions of the Community. A major reform\nof their operation was agreed in 1988; the financial\nresources available for assisting the weaker regions\nhave been both increased and concentrated on specific\nobjectives. The budget is being doubled in real terms\nbetween 1987 and 1993; in 1992 it represents about\n27 % of the overall Community budget. Of these Funds,\nthe ERDF at present makes the most\nimportant contri bution towards economic development\nintervention in the financing of\nthrough its direct\nproductive investments and infrastructures. Many of its\ninterventions have consequences for the environment\nWithin the ERDF, funds devoted to 'environmental\nprojects' have risen considerably from around 100\nMECU per year in 1985-87 to some 700 MECU per\nyear under the present programme (in 1991 prices),\npartly as a consequence of ENVIREG and other\nCommunity initiatives. The ESF, in its support oftraining\nand job-creation, and the EAGGF in its interventions\non rural development and eco-farming also contribute\ntothe protection and improvement ofthe environment\n\n70\n\nIn addition to the 'environmental' expenditure referred\nto, the Community Support Frameworks which form\n\nthe contracts between the Member States and the\nCommission (as fund managers) require conformity\nlegislation and assessment of the\nwith environmental\nenvironmental\nimpact of projects. However where\nmodels of regional development overemphasi ze short\u00ac\nterm economic growth there can be environmental\nside effects which are not consistent with the goal of\nsustainable development. Yet more emphasis will be\ngiven, accordingly,\nto assessment of the wider\nimplications of plans, programmes and projects for\nthe environment and the sustai nability ofdevelopment. Forthcoming Review of the Structural Policies\nIn the further reform of the Structural Funds,\nthe\nCommunity will aim to promote development which\nwill be sustainable in pursuance of Article 2 of the new\nTreaty. In th is context Fund-assisted development shou Id\nbe based on the intrinsic strengths and natural resources\nof the designated regions and be geared towards high\nquality processes and products. This implies both a\ngreater\nlevel of integration of the environmental\ndimension into the Fund processes themselves - with\nthe environment beingtreated as a mainstream concern\nof the development process - as well as improved\ncoordination and synergy between the different funds. Such an approach will be fundamental for the longer-\nterm economic and social cohesion of the Community. In the case of the ERDF, Fund-assisted development\nwill take account of the environmental\nimplications. Member States wi 1 1 be encouraged to take an integrated\napproach, taking full account of the environmental\nimpact at an early stage in the formulation of plans and\nprogrammes and avoidi ng environmental degradation\nthat could be irreversible or would require costly\ncorrective action in future. the ESF, this Programme stresses\n\nAs regards\nthe\nimportance which attaches to education and training\nincluding indications of professional and\naspects,\nvocational expertise which will be needed for its\neffective implementation. In the context of the review,\nand in conjunction with the Task Force on Human\nResources, Education, Training and Youth, the ESF will\ngive increased support to job-creation and training\nrelated to environmental activities that\nfacilitate\nsustainable regional development\n\nThe opportunities and incentives to promote responsible\nmanagement of land, forest and eco-systems through\nboth the EAGGF and ESF will increase according as the\nCommon Agricultural Policy is reoriented towards a\nbetter balanced and more dynamic management of\nrural areas ofthe Community. As a general principle to\nbe applied in the long-term re-structuring of the CAP,\nentitlement to Community support will progressively\nbecome conditional on exploitation of agricultural\nand other rural\nresources in an environmentally\nacceptable way, and eventually in a way which\n\n\fenhances and improves the quality of\nenvironment and the countryside in general. the rural\n\nFinally, as respects the Structural Funds in general ,\nthere is a need for more integrated planning and\nnetworking, especially where the integration and\ncohesion of peripheral regions are concerned - this is\na theme which will is pursued further in the framework\nof the \" Europe 2000\" exercise\u201d 1. Community Financial Instrument forthe Environment\n( LIFE)\nWhile the philosophical concepts of environmental\nresponsibility and sustainable development are quite\nwidely accepted, they still remain rather abstract for\nthe vast majority of economic actors. Whether as\nadministrators, entrepreneurs or consumers, they may\nnot understand how they are expected to translate\nconcepts into everyday actions. In this context, the\nprinciple tasks of LIFE will lie in\n\ndefining and promoting models of production and\nbehaviour which are in line with the principles of\nsustainable development;\npractical demonstration of the technical viability\nand economic efficiency of chosen models and\nactions;\nsupporting specific demonstrations, pilot projects\nand horizontal information, education and training\ndesigned to infl uence the economic actors through\nthe use of practical examples; and,\nstrengthening administrative structures. Up to now, these types of actions have been pursued\nin a rather disparate fashion through a collection of\nsmall-scale financial instruments-MEDSPA, NORSPA,\nACE and ACNAT. LIFE is designed to achieve an\neffective integration and increased efficiency of the\nforegoing instruments through better co-ordination of\nprocedures and better all-round management\n\nInstitution of a Coh\u00e9sion Fund\nArticle 130d ofthe Treaty on European Union provides\nfor the establishment, before 31 December 1 993 , of a\nCohesion Fund forthe making of financial contributions\nto projects in the fields of environment and trans-\nEuropean networks in the area oftransport infrastructure. The potential beneficiaries are Greece, Ireland, Portugal\nand Spain. The very nature of the Fund presupposes a\nhigh level of Community intervention (85 to 90 %). The\nCohesion Fund will add a new dimension to the\neconomic and social cohesion effort. The new Fund\nwill be to these States what the Structural policies are\nto the regions. It is envisaged that Cohesion Fund financing will be\nsubject to two conditions :\n\nFirstly, the projects to be considered must derive\ntheir origins from Community legislation. For\n\nni COM (91 ) 452 final , 7. 1 1. 1991\n\nprojects in the field of environment this means\nthat they must result from a Community decision\nwhich implies disproportionate costs for the public\nauthorities of the Member State in question. In this\nway the Cohesion Fund will help the poorer\nMember States to effectively apply Community\nenvironmental legislation. The second condition is prior adoption by the\nCouncil of an economic convergence programme. Implementation of this programme will be\nmonitored by the Community in the context of\nmultilateral surveillance provided for in Article\n104c of the Treaty. in the\nThe Commission will be presenting a proposal\ncourse of 1992 for a Regulation on the establishment\nand operation of the Fund. In 1983 , a\n\nThe European Investment Bank\nEnvironmental protection has constituted an important\nfor\ncriterion for EIB project selection and appraisal\nmost of the last twenty years. formal\ndeclaration of intent on environmental policy was\nmade by the EIB of a \" Declaration of Environmental\nPolicies and Procedures relating to Economic\nDevelopment\", together with the World Bank, regional\ndevelopment banks, UNEP, UNDPand the Commission\nthe EIB became a\nof the European Communities;\nmember of the Environmental Committee of the\nInternational Development Institutions (CIDIE). the Board of Governors\n\nlaid down the\nIn 1984 ,\nfoundations of Bank policy enabling it to intervene in\nfavour of environmental ly-related projects throughout\nthe entire Community. Since 1988 the Bank has\nmaintained cooperation with the World Bank within\nthe framework of the Environmental Programme for\nthe Mediterranean (EPM). One result ofthis co-operation\nis the Mediterranean technical assistance programme,\nMETAP, whose objective is to function as a catalyst for\nin the region. Further\nenvironmental\nopportunities for increased cooperation are envisaged\n- for instance, cofinancing investment within ENVIREG. investment\n\nFor its operating purposes the Bank has adopted an\nenvironmental definition which covers water-related\nprojects, solid waste disposal, air pollution control,\nheritage conservation and certain urban pollution-\nreducing projects. Notwithstandingthis rather restrictive\ndefinition there has been both a sharp increase in Bank\nlending in Member Countries in recent years (rising to\n1 5% of total lending in 1 989) and a widening of types\ninvestment covered. The\nof environmental\nenvironmental content of the Bank's lending varies\namong the Member States (from 2% - 3% in Portugal\nand France to 44% in Germany), reflecting, among\nother factors, the Bank's range of lending possibilities\nin these countries. 0\n\n\fOBJECTIVES\n\nTARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nACTIONS\n\nTIME-FRAME ACTORS\n\nTable 17 : HORIZONTAL MEASURES\n\nUMTCOVEMENT\nOF DATA\n\n- Improvemenl of Base line data\n\n\u2022 Community\n\nprogramme\n\nfor\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nEEA + fiC\n\nenvironmental slansuci\n\n* National statistics on environment\n* Regional and Community statistics\n\n- Development of Environmental Indicators\n\n* Indicators ofgeneral progress and trends\n\n- Regular assessment ofquality and progress\n\n* National and Community reports on\n\nthe state of the environment\n\n1995\n1995\n\n1995\n1997\n1995\n\n2000\n\n\u2022 Inventory of polluting emissions and\n\n\u2022 Published inventories (progressive)\n\n1994 =\u00bb\n\n\u2022 New R A D programme\n\n1992/96\n\n2- SCIENTIFIC\nRESEARCH\nAND TECHNO-\nLOGICAL DE-\nVELQPMENT\n\ndischarges , and waste\n\n- Consid\u00e9rable reinforcementof investmenu\nin general environment + energy R+D\n- Specific programmes as low carbon\ntechnology, biomass, and other renewable\nenergies\n\n- Extended programmes on biotechnology,\nincluding its use in integrated pest control\nin agriculture\n\n- Expanded\n\nprogramme\n\ntechnologies, recycling\nrecyclable and reusable materials\n\non\n\nclean\ntechnologies ,\n\n3. SECTORAL\nAND SPATIAL\nPLANNING\n\nIntegrated socio-economie\nplans\n\ndevelopment\n\n\u2022 Integrated Regional Development Plans\n\u2022 Integrated Transport Management Plans\n\nup to 2000\n\n* Integrated Coastal Management Plans\n* Integrated Transport Plans for 2010\n* Environmental Impact Assessment at\n\nplanning and at project level\n\n* EIA applied to ERDF - aimed\n\nprogrammes + projects\n\n4. GETTING\n\nEvaluation of environmental resource stock\n\n\u2022 Preliminary guidelines\n\nlinked to \u201cImprovement of Data\u201d\n\nRIGHT\na) Evaluation and\naccounting\n\nDevelopment of renewable resource\nindicators\n\n* \u201cShadow\u201d GNP tables showing natural\nresource values\n\n1993\n1995\n\nEC\nEJEAM. C, MS\n\n1995 =\u00bb\n\nMS + EC\n\nModification of key economic indicators\n\n\u2022 Formai GNP tables\n\n1999 =*\n\nid\n\nCostArenefu analysis\n\n* Development + impl\u00e9mentation of a\nprogramme intemalizing\n\ncoh\u00e9rent\nextemal costs\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nMS * /nd. Institutions of environmental\naccounting mechanism\n\n* Consultations with professional\n\norganisations\n\n\u2022 Community guidelines\n\n1992\n\n1993\n\nDisclosure of environmental issues in the\naccounts of enterprises\nInstruments\n\nprofessional organisations\n\n\u2022 EC Directive\n\n* Parallel accounts in companies\n\n2000 =\u00bb\n\n* Consultation with MS, Industry and\n\n1992/3\n\nb)Fiscal\n\nincentives\n\nInt\u00e9gration of environment protection\nrequirentents irtto fiscal polides\n\n* Promotion of fiscal incentives for\n\nenvironment\n\nc)Charges\n\nImproved transparency of charging systems\n\n* Review ofmuons! md local levies and charges\n- collation of data\n\nd)Sta!e aids\n\nApplication of polluter pays principle\n\n* Comprehensive review of State Aids\nin environment field\n\n1992/3\n\nEC + MS\n\ne)Other\n\neconomic and\nmarket related\n\nmstramenu\n\n- Environmental Audit of all major public\n\n* Directive on Eco-audits\n\nand private enterprises\n\nEcoaudits\n\n* Consultations with MS, Industry and\n\ninsurance institutions\n\n* Initiation of scheme of performance\nBonds in respect of covenants and\nlicense conditions\n\n1992\n1994\n1992/3\n\n1995\n\nEC + MS +\nAccounlants\nEC + MS, LAs\n+ Enterprise\nA/5+LAS +\nInsurance\ncompanies\n\nMS\n\nEC\n\nEC\nEC\n\nMS\n\nEC\n\nEC,\nEnterprise\n\nEnterprise\n+ MS+EC\nid\n\nid\n\nid\n\nMS, LAs, EC\nMS, LAs, EC\n\nMS , LAs, EC\nMS, LAs. EC\nMS, LAs, EC\n\nMS, LAs, EC\n\n1993\n\n1995\n\n1993\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n1994\n\n1998\n1997\n1995 =\u00bb\nongoing\n1993 =\u00bb\n\nEC\n\nAccountants\n*Profess. Bodies* EC\n\nECJvCJndustry\nAProf. Bodies\nEC+MS\n\nMS * EC\n\nMS + LAs\nEC\n\n1994\n\n1993\n\n1993\n\n\fOBJECTIVES\n\nTARGUES UP TO 2000\n\nACTIONS\n\nTIME-ERAME ACTORS\n\nTable 17 : HORIZONTAL MEASURES\n\n- Integrated li Ability and joint responsibility\n\n\u2022 Directive on civil liability for damage\n\n1993 =\u00bb\n\n- Deposit/Refund systems\n\nS. PUBLIC\nINFORMATION\nAND\nEDUCATION\n\n- Improved level of general information\n\n- Specific information campaigns on\n\nselected themes\n\n- Improved Consumer information\n\n- Integrated environment into all primary\n\nand secondary school curricula\n\ncaused by waste\n\n\u2022 Discussion document on civil liability\n\nand joint responsibility systems\n\n\u2022 Adoption of EC regulation\n\n\u2022 Progressive unplementaijoo\n\nReports on progr\u00e8s s and effecliveness\n\n\u2022 Public access to environminfo\n\u2022 Regular slate -of-environment reports\n\n\u2022 Waste. energy consumption ,\n\ntransport\n(to be decided by Environment\n\netc. Policy Review Group)\n\n1992\n\n1995\n\nongoing\n1995/8\n\n1993\n\n1995\n\n1992 =>\n\n\u2022 Ecological labelling\n\u2022 Integrated EnvironmcntaUConsumcr\n\n1993\n\n1998\n\nSafety label\n\n* Report on current situation and proposal\n\n1992\n\non developments\n\n* Programme of p\u00e9dagogie research\n\u2022 Adoption of general guidelines\n* Pr\u00e9paration of books/leaching aids\n\u2022 Training of teachers\n\u2022 Integration into school curricula\n\u2022 Programme of seminars , summer\n\nschools , colloques\n\n\u2022 Annual update of progress\n\n1992/3\n1993\nongoing\n1993 =>\n\n2000\n\n1993 =>\n\n1993 =>\n\n1992\n\n1993 =>\n\nI\n\nI\ni\n\n\u00a3C + MS\n\nEC\n\nEC + MS\n\nMSJ-nterpr\nEC + MS\n\nLArMSMC\nLAs. MS\n\nEC, MS. public\nutilities\n\nEC. MS\nECMS. Standards\nInstitutes\nEC\n\nMSEdJnsJBC\nMS\nEnterprise\nEdite. Insis. MS\nMSXduc. In sis. EC\n\nEC\n\nNational\nEducJnsts. id\n\nEduc. Insis. Enterprise\n\n6. PROFES \u00ac\nSIONAL\nEDUCATION\nAND\n\n- Integration of environmental studies in a\nrepresentative proportion of third level\ninstitutions\n\n\u2022 Report on current situation for all sectors\n\u2022 Incorporation of environment studies\n\n- Vocational training programmes for\nagrono\u00ac\nforesters and other appropriate\n\ntechnicians, machine operators ,\nmists. workers and trainers\n\n\u2022 Idem of environment faculties\n\nid\n\n\u2022 Pedagogic research , preparation\n\nof\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nbooks and leaching aids\n\n\u2022 Professional training courses , seminars\nand workshop for planners , accountants ,\nauditors\n\n* Co-ordination among professional\ninstitutes , development of guidelines\nand procedures\n\n1992 =>\n\nEC \u2666 Prof. Bodies\n\n- Ongoing programme of\n\ncourses and\nseminars for policy planners, transport\nmanagers , agricultural advisers , tourism\noperators\n\n\u2022 Idem\n\nid\n\nid\n\n7. FINANCIAL\n\nMECHANISMS\n\nFull\nintegration of environmental dimension in\ndisbursement ofstructural funds (with effect from tbe\nratification of tbe new Treaty)\n\n\u2022 Take account of environmental impact\n\n1993 =\u00bb\n\nMS. LA \u00bb. EC\n\nFEOGA aid to be orientated to favour\nsustainable, integrated farming and nira1\ndevelopment\n\nLIFE to be developed as a \u201cbooster\nmechanism\u2019* for\neffective impl\u00e9mentation of environment\npolicy\n\n\u2022 Progressive re-oncntation pnee lo\n\n1992 =\u00bb\n\nEC\n\nincome supports\n\n* Land management contracts\n\u2022 Rural Development Programme\n\u2022 Forest Development Programme\n\n1992 =\u00bb\nProgressive\nid\n\n\u2022 initiation of LIFE\n\u2022 Comprehensive review and extension\n\n1992\n\n1995\n\nas appropriate\n\nMS + EC\n\nid\nForest Enter-\nprises. MS+EC\nEC + MS\n\nid\n\nNew Coh\u00e9sion Fund\n\n\u2022 Special boost for air, waste water, waste\n\n1993-1998\n\nEC * MS +\n\nNew financial support mechanisms to\nassist SME\u2019t\n\n* Compr\u00e9hensive survey of difficult\u00e9s\n\n199203\n\nand needs\n\ntreatment etc. \u2022 Comprehensive review of State Aids in\n\n1993\n\nenvironment field\n\nLAs\n\nECjVfS,\nbdustry\nOrganisations\nEC\n\n\fChapter 8: Subsidiarity and Shared Responsibility\n\nthe Community will\n\nThe principle of subsidiarityhas been given a place of\nprominence and general application in the new Treaty\non European Union. Article A refers to the process of\ncreating an ever closer union among the peoples of\nEurope, * in which decisions are taken as closely as\npossible to the citizen On the basis Article 3b of the\nnew Treaty,\nin\naccordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if\nand insofar as the objectives of the proposed action\ncannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States\nand can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of\nproposed action, be better achieved by the Community. In drawing up this Programme, an attempt has been\nmade to translate the principle of subsidiarity into\noperational terms. take action,\n\nSince the objectives and targets put forward in the\nProgramme and the ultimate goal of sustainable\ndevelopment can only be achieved by concertedaction\non the part of all the relevant actors working together\nin partnership, the Programme combines the principle\nof subsidiarity with the wider concept of shared\nresponsibility. This latter concept involves not so much\na choice of action at one level to the excusion of others\n\nbut, rather, a mixing of actors and instruments at the\nappropriate levels, without any calling into question of\nthe division of competences between the Community,\nthe Member States, regional and local authorities. For\nany one target or problem, the emphasis (actors and\ninstruments) could lie with the Community/national/\nregional government level and for another with the\nregional/local/sectoral level or atthe level ofenterprise^\ngeneral public/consumers. The practical application of the principle of subsidiarity\nand shared responsibility will also involve respect for\nthe current (Art. 130r. 4) and proposed (Art 130s. 4)\nstipulation that without prejudice to certain measures\nof a Community nature,\nthe Member States must\nfinance and implement environment policy. to indicate the\nTable 18 represents an attempt\ncomplementarity of actions at different levels within\nframework of subsidiarity and shared\nan overall\nresponsibility. In other tables of the Programme the\n\"actors \" column indicates the different actors\nconsidered as most relevant to the implementation of\nspecific measures. 73\n\n\fTable 18 : EXAMPLES OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY\n\nEC\n\n(*)Mexnber State and\nR\u00e9gional Govemmenls\n\nLocal + R\u00e9gional\nAuthorities\n\nEnterprises\n\nGeneral Public /\nConsumer\n\nPlanning\n- Economic and\n\nsocial development\n\n- Physical planning\n\nDirective\nEEC (EIA)\n\n85/337/\n\n;\n\n- Networks\n\nEUTJ\n\nof KWI , nol. coramufuca- \\\n\nDemand - distribution\n\nDemand > infraslruc- NGO\nturc\n\nEIA - public par-\nticipation\n\n::\n\nR \u00c4D pogr<ffnroc*,\n\ni:\n\nForalpomtsTrrxoon- Emission coctroU En?. ' R\n\n& 0\n\n/ trcstnfeBf/l;:\u00dfm%* :*: BSotechrKtlogy. f !\n\nIntegrated pollution controls\n\nh \u2022\n\n\u2022;\u25a0\u25a0:\u25a0: T -. -\u00ef\n\nFiscal incentives Na \u00ac\ntional waste mgt plan s\n\nWaste prevention\npolicie. BSSWfflSSSi\n\nConsumer demand\nECO-labels\n\nB iss em ht \u00bb t i on\nCo^ordin ation j Admitri structures;\n1 Nat\u00ecoswl ; statistica!\n^EXEunbnat statisti\niSj&bwgt\u00eftomifcs\u00ae\n\n\u2022\n\n;\n\nchiatton\u00bb: \u00e0i-' I ' ^cu!nEf>\u2018 InsUmtft/\n\nstasmenL; disserrisi\n\n|. 'mvestment\n\nNGOs\ncidzens , consumera\n\nconcemed\n\n\u041e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u0441/\u043e\u0433^\u0433\u0430\u0414\u043c\u043f\u0441* 3\n;\n\u00ab-:* \u0435\u044f-\u041b\u0433\u0433\u0436\u0442\u0435\u0433\u0439\u0430!\n\nTrades Unions\n\nRAJ2\n\u2022 Media\n\n- Processes\n\n- Products\n\nCommunicative\n- Information\n\n- Education\n\n- Training\n\nMarket-based\n- Codes of conduct\n(vol. agreements)\n\n- Resource Mgt (env. audit)\n\nre\u00e7u\n\nP&J\u00fb\u00ea\u00db\n\nSectoral agreements ;\nOwn Service Audit\n\nOwn activity audit ;\noperating licenses\n\nmmS-iL\u00dcd\n\nInvestors , public ,\nconsumerinfonnalian\n\n- Ecological labels\n\n- Financial supports -\n(incL state aids)\n\n\u00abid of EC tausncsftl\n\n\u03af \u00ab\n\u25a0\u03bd\u03bd\u03b9\n\n<d. tr&i\n\nHabitats directive,\nACNAT, NATURA\n2000, Rural Dcvelopt\n\nNormative\n- Env. protection\n\n- Internai Mkt\n\n- Impl\u00e9mentation of\nInternat, agrs*\u00ab\"\n\n*-\u00ab_\n\nSpsna\u00ef p\u00eeim* Local\n\nNGOs/publicdemand\nfor facilities & qual \u00ac\nity of life\n\nDemand for avoid \u00ac\nance of trade barriers\n\nDemand for consumer\nchoice\n\n\u2022 Leid R\u00f4le, W\u00ca\u00ca\n\n* Complemcnury R\u00f4le ,\n\n- Position of influence\n\n(\u2022)\n\nIt is appreciated that, because of differences in the constitutional and instutional arrangements in the Member States, competences are\nnot shared in a common manner. Accordingly, as the title indicates, this table is intended to provide theoritical examples of shared\nresponsibility which are not intended to inferfere with existing divisions of competences. The reference to Regional Governments is\nused to cover sub-national governments such as the Lander in Germany and the regional administrations in Begium , Italy and Spain\nwhich have certain exclusive competences in the fields of policy dealt with in this Programme. \u039e\n\n\fChapter 9: Impl\u00e9mentation and Enforcement\n\nSatisfactory implementation and enforcement of the\npolicy, strategy and measures set out in this Programme\natall levelsof society will be imperative ifthe objectives\nof environmental protection , sustainability of socio\u00ac\neconomic activity and development and the integrity\nof the Internal Market are to be achieved. Ultimately,\nmeasures designed to faci I itate sustainable development\nand involving all economic actors through the\napplication of a broad range of instruments should be\nself-enforcing. For the foreseeable future, however,\nthe likelihood isthattheeffectivenessof implementation\nwill be closely related to the quality of the measures\nthemselves and of the arrangements for their\nenforcement. In the past, a number of factors has contributed to\nproblems of implementation, including\n\na lack of overall policy coherence, partly due to\nan evolving, sometimes shifting, agenda as the\nscope of environmental policy grew, and partly\nbecause much of the environmental\nlegislation\nwas developed in an ad hoc manner;\nthe narrow choiceof instruments, whereby perhaps\ntoo great a reliance was placed on regulation of\nthe \"command and control \" type;\nthe need for unanimous agreement within the\nfrequently necessitating\nCouncil of Ministers,\npolitical compromise, has resulted in some cases\nin measures which are difficult to put i nto practical\noperation;\nthe preponderant recourse to Directives as the\nform of legal\ninstrument has often given rise to\ndifficulties in their incorporation into quite widely\ndiffering national statutory codes and\nadministrative procedures with consequential\nproblems of\ninterpretation and practical\nimplementation;\nmanagement inadequacies at all administrative\nlevels, from Community down to local authorities. It is important to learn from these past experiences and\nto take appropriate steps to improve this particular\naspect of pol icy. Among the reforms which are requi red\nare better preparation of measures, including improved\nconsultation arrangements, more effective integration\nwith complementary measures, better practical follow\u00ac\nup to legislative measures, both administrative and\noperative, and stricter compliance checking and\nenforcement. environmental and consumer organisations and\nrelevant Directorates-Generalofthe Commission;\nit\nis envisaged that this Forum will act as an\numbrella organisation, with specialist subgroups\nset up as necessary to deal with specific topics or\nissues. The common interest in moving towards\nsustainability and the need to increase levels of\nawareness and consensus in the application of\nshared responsibility underline the importance of\nthis Forum. ii. AN IMPLEMENTATION NETWORK comprising\nrepresentatives of relevant national authorities\nand of the Commission in the field of practical\nimplementation of Community measures;\nit will\nbe aimed primarily at exchange of information\nand experience and at the development of common\napproachesat practical level , under the supervision\nof the Commission. Without prejudice to the\nspecific responsibilities and prerogatives of the\nCommission in regard to implementation and\nenforcement under Articles 155 and 169 of the\nthe Network can help to promote\nTreaty ,\nconsistency in the practical application of\nCommunity policy and rules as between the\ninvolve,\nMember States. This will\ninter alia,\ninformation on technical\nexchanges of\ndevelopments, compliance initiatives and\nprecautionary actions. Member States might also\navail of the Network's expertise or assistance for\nadvice on local or national compliance\nmechanisms, audits and reporting arrangements. iii. AN ENVIRONMENT POLICY REVIEW CROUP\ncomprising representatives of the Commission\nand the Member States at Director-General level\nwill be established to develop mutual\nunderstanding and exchange of views on\nenvironmental policies and measures. It will be\nmodelled on the Committee of Directors-General\nof\nIndustry which has been operating very\neffectively for a number of years past One of its\nessential purposes is to fill the gap resulting from\nthat communications between the\nthe fact\nCommission and the Member States on\nenvironment issues have largely been confined to\ndeliberation of specific proposals within the\nCounci I and exchanges in relation to infri ngement\nproceedings. In order to institute these reforms,\nestablish the following ad hoc dialogue groups:\n\nit is intended to\n\ni\ni\n\nA CONSULTATIVE FORUM will be established\nto provide for consultation and information\nexchange between the industrial/production\nthe business world, regional and local\nsectors,\nauthorities, professional associations, trade unions,\n\nin a special\nThese three dialogue groups will serve,\nway,\nto promote a greater sense of responsibility\namong the principal actors in the partenariat, and to\nensure effective and transparent application of\nmeasures. They are not intended to duplicate the work\nof committees established by Community legislation\nfor the purposes of follow-up in respect of specific\nmeasures,nor by the Commission in relation to specific\n\n75\n\n\ffields of interest such as consumer protection , tourism Integration of Policies\ndevelopment , etc. nor by Member States for\nimplementation and enforcement of policy at national\nlevel. Finally,\nthey will not substitute the existing\ndialogue betweenindustryandtheCommission, which\nit is intended to strengthen in any event. In pursuance ofthe Treaty (Article 130r. 2) and the\nobjective of sustainable development ,\nthe\nenvironmental dimension will be fully\nincorporated into all other Community policies;\n\n*\n\nAmong the practical reforms to be undertaken will be:\n\nImprovement in Legislation\n*\n\na more careful choice and preparation of\ninstruments:\nthe legislative approach may not\nalways be the best choice as a first step even\nthough it may have an essential role to play in the\nlonger term;\n\n*\n\n*\n\n*\n\nrelevant legislative measures and standards should\nbenefit from prior consultation ofthe Consultative\nForum and, before finalisation of content, should\nbe subjected to an \"enforceability assessment\";\n\n*\n\nlegislation should incorporate\nenvironmental\nspecific enforcement provisions, notably where\nstandards are prescribed;\n\nthere should be a practical follow-through on all\nnew legislation in terms of training programmes,\nseminars and workshops;\n\nan assessment of\nthe implications for the\nenvironment will be made in the course of\ndrawing up Community policies and legislation\nwith special care taken in the areas of internal\nmarket,\nindustrial , energy,\ntrade,\nagriculture, transport, regional development and\ntourism;\n\ninternational\n\nMember States should undertake similar\nintegration by applying environmental\nimpact\nassessments to their own plans and programmes. Non-compliance with EC and national legislation\ncan result in damage to the environment as well\nas to property both in the physical and in the\nit can also create distortions in\nfinancial sense;\ncompetition between enterprises. In this context,\nthe provisions of Article 1 71 of the new Treaty in\nregard to action by the European Court in the\nevent of non-compl iance, i ncl udi ng the possibi I ity\nof imposing a lump sum or penalty payment,\ncould have an important incentive or corrective\neffect. Impl\u00e9mentation\n*\n\nDirectives adopted at Community level must be\ntransposed in national legislation within the time-\nframes decided by the Council ;\n\n*\n\n*\n\nClean-up programmes and monitoring plans\nClean-up programmes and monitoring plans\nagreed in Council must be put\nin place in\nagreed in Council must be put\nin place in\nconformity with the time-frames adopted;\n'\nconformity with the time-frames adopted;\n\nAll Member States that have not already done so\nAll Member States that have not already done so\nshould establish enforcement bodies and\nshould establish enforcement bodies and\nprocedures to ensure full and equal compliance\nprocedures to ensure full and equal compliance\nwith both legislative and authorisation-associated\nwith both legislative and authorisation-associated\nrequirements;\nrequirements;\n\nInvolvement ofthe Public\n*\n\nGiven their right of access to environmental\ninformation (Directive 90/31 3/EECP the public\nmust be enabled to participate as fully as possible\nin the decision making processes for construction\nauthorisations, operating permits,\nemission/\ndischarge licences, etc; they have a direct interest\nin the quality of their living environment, and in\naddition, can provide an important spur to good\nperformance by companies in their area - perhaps\neven as employees or managers; this principle\nmust also apply for information at the disposal of\nCommunity institutions;\n\nThe reporting requirements of various Directives\nand Regulations,\nrecently rationalized by a\ncomposite Directive on reporting01, must be\nassiduously adhered to;\n\n*\n\nBecause of the implications for the relative\ncompetitiveness offirmswithinthe Internal Market,\nas wel I as for the purposes ofappl yi ng the \"pol I uter\npays principle* a comprehensive review of fines\nand penalties applied in different parts of the\nCommunity will be carried out before end-1 993;\n\nlegislation and ,\n\nOptimum transparency as regards implementation\nof\nin particular, as regards\nauthorisations for emissions into the environment\nmust be assured. 76\n\nn) OJN\u00b0L377, 31. 12. 1991 , 91 /692/EEC\n\u00ae OJN\u00b0 LI 58/56, 23. 6. 90\n\nAn accessible and efficient complaints facility\nshould be developed at local , regional and national\nto improve confidence between public,\nlevel\ncompetent authorities and industrial or business\nestablishments. In this context, complaints should\nbe considered less a nuisance than a resource. They are an indication to enforcement agencies of\nsomething amiss and can keep the competent\nauthorities in touch with the realities of situations\nfrom which they may be geogra ph i cal I y remote or\nwhich they are not in a position to monitor on a\ncontinuing basis. *\n\nIndividuals and public interest groups should\nhave practicable access to the courts in order to\n\n\fensure that their legitimate interests are protected\nand that prescribed environmental measures are\neffectively enforced and illegal practices stopped. Environmental Liability\n*\n\nthe Commission has already proposed a Directive\nin regard to civil\nliability for damage to the\nenvironment caused by waste*\u201d;\n\n\u2022\n\n\u2022\n\nas soon as practicable the Community will\nestablish a mechanism whereby damage to the\nenvironment is restored by the person or body\nwho is responsible for the damage incurred ; care\nwi 1 1 have be taken that the 'pol I uter pays pri nciple*\nis fully respected;\n\nwhere the author ofenvironmental damage cannot\nbe readily identified -for instance in the case of\npollution from diffuse sources- other mechanismes\nfor liability-sharing should be devised. Involvement of the European Environment Agency\nUnder the terms of the instituting Regulation , the issue\nas to whether the Agency should have a r6le in\n\nmonitoring implementation of Community measures,\nwas postponed for decision in the context of a review\nto be conducted after its first two years of operation. However, as a generator of environmental data, as a\nbody charged with ensuring the quality and\ncomparability of data and as producer of state-of-the-\nenvironment reports, the Agency will have a key rble\nto play in the area of implementation and enforcement\nin any event. Reports on implementation\nFinally, the Commission will continue to provide reports\nto the Counci I , the European Pari i ament and the general\npublicon the extent and quality of implementation and\nenforcement throughout the Community. According\nas the quantity and quality of information is improved\nin consequence of improved reporting by the Member\nStates and avai labi lity of more dependable data through\nthe European Environment Agency, together with the\npotential experience and observations of the proposed\nNetwork on practical\nimplementation of Community\nmeasures, these reports will serve both as a performance\nindicator and as an incentive mechanism for general\nimprovement of implementation and enforcement. *\u201d\n\nO. J. N\u00b0 C251 of 4 October 1 989. 77\n\n\fPART II\n\nThe Communities' Role in the\nWider International Arena\n\n79\n\n\fThe Communities' Role in the Wider International Arena\n\nIn the early stages, Community policy and action on the environment were mainly focussed on the solution of\nparticularly acute problems within the Community. Later there was a clearer recognition that pollution did not\nstop at its frontiers and that it was necessary, therefore, to intensify regional and international co-operation to\ncombat transboundary pollution. In recent times, the evolution has gone a step further and it is now generally\naccepted that problems of a global nature are seriously threatening the ecological balance of our planet as a\nwhole. Global issues relating to the environment and natural resources have now become so important that, in\nthe run-up to 2000, they could be an important determinant of the ways in which international relations will\ndevelop - economically, politically and in security terms. This appreciation is now formally recognized in Article\n130r. 1 of the new Treaty on European Union which includes among the Community's environment policy\nobjectives the promotion of measures at international\nlevel to deal with regional or world wide environment\nproblems. The scale, scope and nature of environmental and natural resource problems today is mainly due to the\nunprecedented level of socio-economic development during this present century, and particularly over the\nperiod since the end of World War II. The world is on history's steepest growth-curve : this century alone, the\nworld's population has tripled; about four-fifths ofthis growth has taken place since 1 950. Over the next 50 years,\npopulation levels are expected to double and even with only a very modest improvement in living standards there\ncould be as much as a five-to-ten fold increase in economic activity touching all the key sectors, notably energy,\ntransport, industry, construction and agriculture. These trends pose a threat to nations' economic potential, their citizens' health, their internal political security\nand, in the case of global warming, their very existence. In the Dublin Declaration, the European Council stressed the special responsibility of the Community and its\nconstituent Member States to encourage and participate in international action to combat global environment\nproblems. It stated that \"the Community must use more effectively its position of moral, economic and political\nauthority to advance international efforts to solve global problems and to promote sustainable development and\nrespect for the global commons\". 81\n\n\fChapter 10: Environmental Threats and Issues\n\n10. 1 Global issues\n\nFour major problems are an increasing cause of global\nconcern and call for a coherent and effective response\nas a matter of urgency :\n\n1991 by UNEP1\u201d indicates that the depletion of the\nozone layer over many parts of the globe is twice as\nserious as hitherto believed. Climate Change\nEmissions from many different human activities are\ndramatically increasing atmospheric concentrations\nof greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane\nand nitrous oxide. Notwithstanding some scientific\nuncertainty, experts agree that these changes in the\ncomposition of the Earth's atmosphere are resulting in\na process of global warming with many associated\nrisks - raising of sea levels, climatic disturbances,\ndrought and desertification - which could\nhave\nenormous implications for social and economic life. Ozone Layer D\u00e9pl\u00e9tion\nA broad scientific consensus has emerged that several\nman-made chemicals especially CFCs - are responsible\nfor the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer\nwhich protects the Earth's surface from ultraviolet\nradiation. This is one of the few areas where a\ncomprehensive remedial strategy including legal and\nfinancial measures - has been developed. Now however\nthe situation appears to be more grave than previously\nthought. Scientific evidence published in December\n\nBiodiversity Loss\nBiodiversity is subject to increasing pressures mainly\ndue to the disruption ofecosystems and the destruction\nof habitats. According to some estimates up to 100\nspecies could be lost every da/3. Apart\nfrom its\necological\nthe erosion of the Earth's\nbiological heritage could have serious economic effects\nsince the potential todevelop new products, especially\nfood and medicines,\nis undermined as animal and\nplant species disappear. implications,\n\nD\u00e9forestation\nDeforestation levels are causing increasing alarm,\nparticularly\nin tropical and subtropical rain-forest\nareas : according to official FAO data, deforestation is\nnow progressing at the rate of 1 7 million hectares per\nannum. This trend can aggravate other global\nenvironmental problems because of the role forests\nplay as a sink for C02 and as a reservoir for biological\ndiversity. In addition , about 2,5 million native\ninhabitants of the forest areas depend on their natural\nsurroundings for food, fuel , furniture and clothing. 10. 2 Problems of Regional or Local Concern\nAtmospheric pollution, deterioration of the marine\n, deterioration of the marine\n>n and desertification, unsound\nenvironment , soil erosion and desertification, unsound\nmanagement and disposal of hazardous wastes and\nasal of hazardous wastes and\nrial risks, rapid urban growth,\ntoxic chemicals, industrial risks, rapid urban growth,\niter resources etc. pose grave\ndegradation of freshwater resources etc. pose grave\n;s which have to be faced up to\nproblems and challenges which have to be faced up to\nrid if sustainable, ecologically\nin many parts of the world if sustainable, ecologically\nsound development is to be achieved. Of course, the\no be achieved. Of course, the\nscale and extent of these problems vary according the\ne problems vary according the\nparticular economic and demographic situation in\nnd demographic situation in\neach region or country. Central and Eastern Europe\nIn many parts of Central and Eastern Europe\nenvironmental degradation is extremely severe. Past\nsocio-economic structures and policies inculcating\ncentralised planningandabsenceofpublicparticipation\nhave contributed to the emergence of a situation\ncharacterized by inefficiency, wasteful practices and\nhigh pollution levels,\n\nDeveloped Countries\nxne progress has been achieved\nIn the OECD countries some progress has been achieved\nic types of pollution and\nin combating specific types of pollution and\nition, but there are still many\nenvironmental degradation, but there are still many\nich will have to be urgently\noutstanding issues which will have to be urgently\n?d in respect of theCommunity\naddressed (as is indicated in respect of the Community\n:rs). It is clear however that the\nin the preceding chapters). It is clear however that the\nmain challenge these countries will have to face will\n:ountries will have to face will\nbe to effect a substantial change in consumption\nitial change in consumption\ne their share in the use of the\npatterns so as to reduce their share in the use of the\nces, while at the same time\nworld's natural\nresources, while at the same time\novement of the quality of life. ensuring a steady improvement of the quality of life. The Developing Countries\nBut it is in the developing countries that environmental\nproblems are most serious. Soil degradation and\ndesertification, destruction of habitats, over-exploitation\nofnatural resources, deterioration of human settlements\nand degradation of fresh water resources rank among\nthe developing nations' most pressing environmental\nproblems. Population pressure and poverty are key\nfactorsintheemergenceofunsustainabledevelopment\npatterns in many ofthese countries. Population growth\nplaces burgeoning demands on their fragile resource\nbase forthe provision of basic needs : an adequate diet,\npotable water, energy, shelter and material goods. At\nthe same time, the dire economic position in which\nthey find themselves may force these countries to\n\n82\n\nI\n\n01\n\u201c\n\nUNEP: Scientif\u00eec A&sessement of Ozone D\u00e9pl\u00e9tion, 17. 12. 1991\nWhereas only 1 S million species are known today, some estimates put the total number of possible species at 1 0 times that amount. The daily loss rate indicated above has been estimated on the basis of this higher Figure for total species. adopt short-term ecologically harmful strategies in the\nendeavour to increase foreign exchange revenues\nneeded to service immediate needs. Lack of adequate\ninstitutional and regulatory controls, combined with\nthe limited availability oftechnical , human and financial\nresources exacerbates local and regional difficulties\nand problems. 83\n\n\fChapter 11 : International Co-operation\n\nIt goes without saying that no single nation alone, nor group of nations, can provide effective solutions to these\nproblems. Rather, it is essential to secure a high degree of international cooperation and mutual understanding\nbetween nations and groups of nations if the world community is to have any real chance of finding just and\nsustainable solutions and of achieving both intergenerational and intragenerational equity - not only in\nenvironmental terms but also economically and politically. Over the past twenty years, the Community has been playing an important part in international action in the field\nof the environment. The Community is a contracting party to some 30 conventions and international agreements,\nand is actively supporting the work of different international and regional institutions, such as UNEP, UN-ECE,\nOECD and the Council of Europe. In pursuance of its obligations under the Treaty, as amended by the Single\nEuropean Act, and under Article 130r. 1 of the new Treaty on European Union, the Community's involvement\nin international environmental action will be stepped up over the period covered by the Programme. in order to maintain their evolution potential ;\nthe\ndiversity of the species themselves; and lastly the\nvarietyofthe ecosystems in which they aretobe found ,\nEx-situ conservation should be regarded as a\ncomplement to in-situ conservation and never as a\nsubstitution toit. The convention on biological diversity-\nshould also addressthe questions concerning access to\nbiogenetic resources and control of biotechnological\nrisks. 11. 1 The Community's Position on the Major Issues\nthe Community 's\niate change ,\nAs regards climate change ,\nthe Community 's\ncommitment to stabilise C02 emissions at 1 990 levels\nbilise C02 emissions at 1990 levels\nby the year 2000 with further reductions thereafter is\n/vith further reductions thereafter is\nthe basis for its position in the ongoing negotiations to\nition in the ongoing negotiations to\ndraft a framework global Convention on cl imate change. lobalConventiononclimatechange. complementary protocols to define\nThe elaboration of complementary protocols to define\ngets and commitments on carbon\ntargets and commitments on carbon\nspecific global\nks\", particularly forests, on the basis\nemissions and \"sinks\", particularly forests, on the basis\nof such framework must also be accelerated. The\nrk must also be accelerated. The\nConvention should set an ultimate global objective of\nstabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at a level\nthat would prevent dangerous anthropogenic\ninterference with the global climate, within a time\nframe sufficient to al low ecosystems to adapt natural ly. It should also take into account the common , but\ndifferentiated, responsibilities ofthe Parties, recognizing\nthat the manner in which they will have to implement\ntheir commitments may depend on their level of\ndevelopment and greenhouse gas emissions. The envisaged declaration at UNCED on the\nmanagement and development of all forests - temperate,\nboreal and tropical - should incorporate a commitment\nto conclude an international Convention on forests at\nIn addition the active\nthe earliest possible time. participation of the ITTO and GATT will be necessary\nin order to address the particular issue of international\ntrade in tropical timber with a view to reconciling\nimperatives and legitimate trade\nenvironmental\nactivities in the meantime. Assistance in the forestry\nsector requires co-operation and coordination. A\nrevamping of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, with\nan emphasis on a country-driven rather than a donor-\ndriven approach, will help countries to plan and\nmanage their own forest resources in a sustainable\nway. The Community is a contracting party to the Vienna\nConvention for the protection of the ozone layer and\nto the Montrea I Protocol on substances that deplete the\nozone layer. The Community has decided to introduce\nunilateral control measures which are more severe\nthan those in the Protocol. In view of the new scientific\nevidence available the Community would support a\nbringing forward of the phasing-out schedule agreed\nin June 1990, and urge all parties to the Montreal\nProtocol to adopt more stringent measures along the\nlines of the Community regulation. The convention to be adopted on biological diversity\nat UNCED should recognize that the conservation of\nbiological diversity for the benefit of present and\nfuture generations is a common responsibility of\nmankind, and should ensure its protection at three\ndifferent levels : genetic diversity within each species,\n\n84\n\nIn conformity with the mandate given by the European\nCouncil and the G-7 economic summit, the Commission\nhas launched a pilot project for the conservation of the\nlargesttropical forest ofthe world. This is an exceptional\ninitiative to which the Commission is participating\nwith the Brazilian Government and the World Bank,\nand involving a total amount of250 million USdollars. This enables the Community to adopt a positive stance\nin the run-up to the UNCED Conference (Rio, June\n1 992). It is hoped that the resu Its of the programme can\nbe successfully applied to other regions. The Community is in the process of formally adopting\na new regulation to bring its legislation into line with\nthe existing \"Prior Informed Consent\" procedures in\nthe case of international trade in toxic chemicals and\npesticides. The elaboration of\nlegally binding\ninternational agreementsaimedatupgradingthestatus\nof the UNEP London Guidelines for the exchange of\ninformation on chemicals in international\ntrade, as\nwell as of the FAO Code of Conduct on distribution of\npesticides would mark a major step forwards. The\nestablishmentofPriorlnformedConsentprocedurestoreduce\nthe risks associated to international\ntrade in genetically\nmodified organisms would also be highly desirable. 11. 2 Other Priority Issues of Major International Importance\nThe Community should strengthen its invt\nThe Community should strengthen its involvement in\nall relevant\ninitiatives to protect region ;\ninitiatives to protect regional seas and\nall relevant\nIn add il\ninternational water courses. In addition to its\ninternational water courses. participation in existing agreements for the\nparticipation in existing agreements for the protection\nofthe Mediterranean and the North Sea, the <\nofthe Mediterranean and the North Sea, theCommunity\nintends soon to become a contracting p\nintends soon to become a contracting party to the\nHelsinki Convention on the protection of\nHelsinki Convention on the protection of the marine\nenvironmentintheBalticSeaArea. Itisalsop\nenvironment in the Baltic Sea Area. It isalso participating\nin the negotiations for the eleboration of a\nin the negotiations for the eleboration of a framework\nconvention on the protection and use oftrar\nconvention on the protection and use oftransboundary\nlakes, as\nwater courses and international\nlakes, as well as of a\nwater courses and international\nnumber of agreements on several European\nnumber of agreements on several European river basins,\nincluding the Danube basin. A convention\nincluding the Danube basin. A convention on the Elbe\nwas signed by the European Community together with\nGermany and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic\nin 1990, and one on the Oder will be signed shortly. The Community is actively supporting,\nthrough its\nMEDSPA programme, the Environmental Programme\nfor the Mediterranean launched jointly by the World\nBank and the EIB. This plan provides a good example\nof interinstitutional co-operation for the protection of\nthe environment which could be extended to other\nregions. As regards hazardous wastes, efforts will be directed\ntowards ensu ri ng the widest possible appl ication ofthe\nprovisions of the Basle Convention, and towards the\nadoption of a specific Protocol to the Convention on\nliability and compensation. At the same time,\nthe\nexport of hazardous wastes to countries that do not\nhave the facilities to treat and dispose of the wastes\nunder the same stringent conditions as apply in the\ncountry oforigin should be banned in accordance with\nregional\nthe Lom\u00a3 convention and other relevant\nconventions. 11. 3 Global Partnership\n\nThe ongoing negotiations on global environmental\nissues are increasingly demonstrating that a joint effort\nby both industrialised and developing countries is\nrequired to establish and execute a coherent and\nIts\neffective strategy to respond to these challenges. scientific and technological co-operation must be\nstrengthened in order to reinforce endogenoustechnical\ncapacities, flow of know-how and technologies must\nbe accelerated with the active involvement of all\nrelevant actors, particularly the business community. financial\n\nHigh priority must be attached to the creation of new\nresources to cover the\nand additional\nsupplementary costs which might fall on developing\ncountries in consequence of internationally agreed\nmeasures to protect the global environment. In its\nconclusions on UNCED of 12 December 1991 , the\nrecognised that new and\nEnvironment Council\nadditional\nresources are needed to assist\ndeveloping countries to deal with global environmental\nexternalities. the Global\nIt was also stressed that\nEnvironmental Facility (GEF) should play a leading\nrole as the multilateral financial mechanism in the\n\nfinancial\n\nresolution of environmental problems of global\nsignificance in developing countries, although its\nstructure and procedures should be developed and\nadjusted so as to take into account the needs of the\nparticipating partners. The Community, as such, should\nbe party to the GEF in order to optimize efficiency in\nthe application ofCommunity funds already committed\nfor global and environment-related projects. level. Against\n\nthis background,\n\nRecent experiences have shown that\ntrade and\nenvironment related issues are becoming increasingly\nimportant as environmental policies and strategies are\nstrengthened and extended at both national and\ninternational\nis\nessential to accelerate the dia logue on the i nterli nkages\nbetween environmental and trade policies in all relevant\ninternational fora, especially in the GATT. This dialogue\nshould be one of the main priorities on the post-\nUruguay Round agenda, and recognizingthat uni lateral\nuse of trade instruments for environmental purposes\nshould be avoided in principle, should focus on the\nrole of international trade in promoting sustainable\ndevelopment. it\n\n85\n\n\f11. 4 Regional Co-operation\n\nis particularly important\n\nIt\nto strengthen regional\ncooperation to tackle specific transboundary problems,\nThe introduction of environmental consid\u00e9rations into\nregional co-operation instruments and the\nestablishment and effective enforcement of appropriate\nlegal agreementsare needed to preventthetransposition\nof environmental problems or transfers of pollution\nfrom one country to its neighbours. A high priority\nshouldthereforebeattachedtotheadoptionofeffective\nrules for the management and protection of shared\nenvironmental\nresources for the prevention of\ndetrimental transboundary impacts, and agreements\n\non civil liability and compensation for environmental\ndamage. In this context, the Community must actively support\nregional initiatives in these areas, especially within the\nUN-ECEand the Council of Europe, by participating in\nimpact\nthe new convention on environmental\nassessment\nin the\nin a transboundary context,\nnegotiations on prevention and control of\ntransboundary effects of industrial accidents and\ndeliberations on civil\nliability for damage resulting\nfrom activities dangerous to the environment. 11. 5 Institutional Issues\n\nThe solution ofthe emergingenvironmental challenges\nrequires the improvement and strengthening of existing\ninternational\ninstitutions, in particular UNEP, as well\nas enhanced coordination between them to ensure\noptimum use of resources. Particular emphasis should be put on achieving a\nbetter scientific understanding of ecological processes\nand on improving the collection and dissemination of\nenvironmental information, with a view to providing a\nsound basis for international action in this field. To this\nend the possibility of creating an international network\nof environmental agencies should be considered. it must be said that the rapid development of\nFinally,\ninternational environment law which has taken place\nover the past two decades has not a I ways been matched\nby a corresponding effort to implement the existing\nis\nconventions and agreements. For this reason,\nessential toestablish appropriate mechanims to monitor\ncompliance with regional and international\nenvironmental agreements. Questions relating to\nprevention and settlement of environmental disputes\nhave also to be addressed, ensuring the partici pation of\nall relevant international actors. it\n\n86\n\n\fChapter 12 : Bilateral Co-operation\n\nEnvironmental concerns are now being reflected in the bilateral co-operation links established between the\nCommunity and its partners all over the world. Co-operation with other industrialised countries, with a view to\nachieving a better coordination ofenvironmental policies and a more effective response to common environmental\nchallenges has been steadily increasing particularly through active participation in the work carried out by the\nOECD. At\nthe existing mechanisms for consultation and exchange of information on\nenvironmental issues between the Community and its major industrialised partners, namely USA, Canada, Japan\nand Australia, need to be substantially reinforced. In the pan-European context, the agreement on the European\nEconomic Area calls for a progressive convergence of environmental policies in the Community and in EFTA\ncountries. This convergence should be progressively reflected in international fora, where the positions adopted\nby both groups of countries already reflea similar concerns and objeaives. the same time,\n\nEnvironmental co-operation with industrialised countries should be reinforced and extended. It is particularly\nimportant to achieve a closer convergence of environmental policies, especial ly as regards those measures which\nmight have a significant impaa on the competitive position of industry. is essential to avoid that the\nimplementation of involving environment policies would have a detrimental effea on the competitiveness of a\ncountry or of a group of countries vis- it -vis its industrialised partners. It\n\nIt is clear however that particular priority should be attached to the reinforcement of environmental co-operation\nin view of the extremely severe environmental\nwith developing and Central and Eastern European countries,\nsituation these countries are confronted with. 12. 1 Developing Countries\n\nThe Community is committed to assisting developing\ncountries in addressing the increasingly grave\nenvironmental problems they face and in achieving\nsustainable development. At present,the Community\nand its Member states contribute about 47% of total\nofficial development assistance, representing 0,45%\nof GDP (over twice the percentage of funds provided\nby either the USA or Japan). The Community and\nMember States will continue to intensify their efforts:\napart from the additional\nfinancial resources which\nwill be required to promote the developing countries'\nparticipation in measures aimed at the solution of\nglobal environmental problems,\nis necessary to\nincrease official development aid and to mobilise new\nfinancial resources, especially private ones, to finance\nsustainable and environmentally sound development\nprogrammes and projects. The Community and its\nMember States reaffirmed in December 1991 their\ncommitment to reach the accepted UN target of 0,7 %\nof GN P for overseas development aid , in order to assist\ndeveloping countries in the implementation of\nsustainable development policies at the national level. it\n\nFurthermore, coordination between Community aid\nandtheindividual bilateral programmes of the Member\nStates has been strengthened over time to ensure a\ncoherent and effaive response to partners\u2019 needs. The\nCommunity is also working towards ever-closer\ncoordination over long-term aid programming in the\nbelief that\nits partners should not be faced with\nconflicting advice, priorities and administrative\nprocedures from the various donor agencies within\nEurope. Such coordination also extends to other\nmultinational donor institutions. \u00fcj\n\nOJN*L229, 17. M i 9 >\n\nThe African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries\nAt Community level , a significant effort has been\nundertaken over the past years to increase the resources\navailable for co-operation with developing countries,\nand to make them more concessional. A comprehensive\nco-operation relationship with APC countries has been\nestablished since 1 963. Environmental proteaion and\nsustainable development are playing an increasingly\nimportant part in this relationship. These issues are at\nthe very core of the Lom\u00a3 IV Convention which was\nsigned in December 1989 and came into effea in\nSeptember 1 991 {1 ). The Convention stresses that :\n\n'development shall be based on a sustainable\nbalance between its economic objeaives,\nthe\nrational management of the environment and the\nenhancement of natural and human resources. priority must be given to environmental proteaion\nand the conservation of natural resources, which\nare essential conditions for sustainable and\nbalanced development from both the economic\nand human viewpoints. co-operation shall entail\nmutual responsibility for preservation of the natural\nheritage. '\n\nA specific title ofthe Convention lists the mai n princi pies\nand priorities for ACP/EC environmental co-operation,\nand includes provisions for the saeening of all projeas\nand programmes for their environmental\nimpaa, on\nthe furnishing of adequate information on pesticides\nand other toxic chemicals, and measures prohibiting\nthe export of radioaaive and hazardous waste from the\nCommunity to the APC States. 87\n\n\fFIGURE 10: DEPOSITION OF SO, AND NOx FROM ALL EUROPEAN SOURCES IN EXCESS OF CRITICAL LOADS IN 1990\n\n\u04191\u03bd'\u00b71\n\nRIVM / CCE\n\nData :\nex CL. s 1990\nEmiss. Europe\nReuion :\nEUROPE\n\ns\n\n}\n\n1\n\n/\n\nI\nI\n\n*\n\n'4\n\nx\n\u2022 n\n\n\\\n\nl\n\n%\n\n\u03b7\n\n\u00a9\n\nSli\n\nm\n\n\u03be. s\n\nild\n\nSi\n\n4\n\na\n\n/\n\nI\n\n*\n\n20000\n\nPT~~1 fcO EXCEEDANCE\nKl s\nS\n\u00a3~\\ *\nI\nI S\n\u25a1 5\nI s\nI\ns\ns\nHfl s\n\n200000\n10000 00\n\n500 00\n1000 00\n\nUnit : eq/lia. yr\n\nl>. Hf 4. f\u00bb. 1991\nkv-m. \u00bbrk r\\c. C'r\u00bbl. l. \u00ab\u00bbi\u00abl**\n1990 KmisvKiimpr\n\nFIGURE 1 1 : DEPOSITION OF SO, AND NOx FROM EUROPEAN SOURCES IN EXCESS OF CRITICAL LOADS IN 2000 ON BASIS OF THE\nEC \"HIGH PRICES' SCENARIO AND THE EXPECTED REDUCTIONS IN THE OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES\n\n>\n\n\u00bb\n\nI\n\nt\n\u00bb\ni\n\n\u0410\n\n\u00a7\n\nminPTJit\u00eaf\u00cali\u2022;rt. m\n\n\\. \u0446\n\nr\n\n/\nI\n;\n\n77\n\n/\n\n/\n\n\\\n\n/\n\n\u041a5. \u00aby\n\nS3\u00ef\n\nfcA\u00e9tf\u00efSBl\n\nm\n\n\\ :\n\na\n\n88\n\nRIVM/CCE\nData :\nexe. I % Cl. or\nHP-dcp. in 2000\nRegion :\nEUROPE\n\n\u25a1\n\nNO EXCEE0ANCE\n\nS\n\nEH3 4\n\ni\n\ni\n\n200 X\n\n500 00\n\n1000 00\n\n2000 00\n\n7000. 00\n\nUnil: eq /ha yr\n\nI XxiM-l\u00eflc : \u2022l uinhiiutl *\nUitc : 27. 11. 1991\nI\nHvin ork : m Cl. CNCCSS O\nHl'-hurup. drpn. ilt 2IMNI\n\n\fAs for the financial resources, the Community will\nmake available to its ACP partners within the context\nof Lom6 IV Convention ,\n1 2. 000 MECU for the most\npart in the form of a subvention , phased over a period\nof 5 years. Between 1 986 and 1 989, 230 projects for\ncombatting desertification were financed amounting\nto 1. 700 MECU. To this, one must add projects for the\nmanagement of mari ne resources, for the promotion of\nrenewable energies and other similar interventions. Following the first assessment of indicative programmes\nof Lome IV, it is expected that an amount of 400 MECU\nper annum will be allocated to environmental\nprogrammes. The Asian and Latin American ( ALA) countries\nThe evolution in the environmental dimension in the\nin the evolution in\nLom\u00a3 Conventions has its parallel\npolicy orientations governing co-operation with the\nALA countries. Under new guidelines established at\nthe beginning of 1991 , environmental protection is\nlisted among the priority areas for co-operation. At\nleast 10% of the total amount available for technical\nand financial co-operation with ALA countries (2750\nMECU in the period 1991 /95) must be allocated to\nenvironmental projects. The new guidelinesalso stress\nthe need to integrate environmental evaluation in the\ndevelopment process as a whole, with the aim of\nensuring long-term protection of the natural resource\nbase and sustainable development. The Non-Community Mediterranean Countries\nSimilarly, the renewed policy orientations in respect of\nco-operation with non-Community Mediterranean\nforesee a\nCountries for the period 1992/1996\nreinforcement of regional co-operation in the field of\nthe environment. Regional projects in this area - e. g. fight against marine pollution and management of\ncoastal areas - will be implemented by means of\nhorizontal co-operation outside bilateral agreements. An important part of the Mediterranean horizontal\nallocations of 230 MECU will be devoted to\nenvironmental projects including,\nin particular,\ndemonstration and training projects. The El B isexpected\nto allocate some 1. 800 MECU in loans to the region\ncoveri ng the enti re range of projects proposed, i ncl ud i ng\nenvironmental projects referred to. In addition ,\nenvironmental protection is one of the main priorities\n\nfor the allocation of funds under the bilateral financial\nprotocols ( 1. 075 MECU in budgetary appropriations\nand 1. 300 MECU in ElB 's loans). MEDSPA, an\nfunding programme which enables\nenvironmental\nexpenditure on technical assistance in non-Community\nMediterranean countries can also contribute in this\narea. Taken together, the above elements comprise a\ncoherent set of financial\ninstruments which could\nsignificantly contribute to implementing the\ncommitments and objectives agreed by the riparian\nStates, the Community, the EIB and the World Bank\nwhen adopting the Nicosia Charter (1 990). it\n\nis clear that\n\nThe Question of Priorities\nAlthough the setting of priorities for cooperation in the\nfield of the environment with our APC, ALA and\nMediterranean partners must be the result of a bilateral\ndialogue which takes account of the specific needs\nand priorities of each country,\nfor\nenvironmental co-operation to work effectively\nparticular emphasis must be put on institution building\nand on the improvement of endogenous technical\ncapacities in the developi ng countries. No programme\nof assistance will be successful if the recipient country\nlacks the skills, management, and organizational ability\nto formulate and implement appropriate environmental\nprotection and sustainable development policies. The\nreinforcement of scientific and technological co\u00ac\noperation with developing countries is of\nvital\nimportance; existing programmes for joint research\nand train ingin the environment and development field\nshould be continued and extended. In the allocation\nof funds and in the choice of projects, high priority\nshould also be accorded to programming which are\ncrucial for the development process, such as energy\nefficiency and development of renewable energy\nsources, combating and reversal of land degradation ,\ndesertification and deforestation, and protection and\nmanagement of fresh water resources. the Community will\n\nFinally,\nestablish appropriate\nenvironmental safeguards at both programme and\nproject levels , as recognized , inter alia, in the Lom\u00a3 IV\nConvention and in the Resolution on environment and\ndevelopment adopted by the Development Council in\nMay 1 990\" 1. 12. 2 Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)\n\nThe momentous political changes in Central and Eastern\nEurope have had a major impact on the international\npolitical agenda, with environmental issues featuring\nvery high on the list of priorities for discussion. The\nimprovement of environmental standards and the\nprotection of human health and qual ity of I ife has been\nhighlighted by the new democratic governments as a\npriority to be addressed in parallel with the process of\neconomic reform and liberalization. Environmental degradation in many CEE regions is\nsevere;\nin some areas the damage already incurred\nmay be irreversible. Although the extent and type of\ndegradation varies from country to country, and from\nregion to region, common problems prevail. These\nproblems include extensive acid rain damage to forests\n(up to 75% of Pol ish forests are said to be affected), and\nthe poisoning of complete river systems (the water of\nthe Vistula is unfit even for industrial use). There is a\npermanent high risk of serious industrial accidents\nparticularly in the nuclear and chemical fields. 89\n\n01\n\nCouncil Resolution 6723/90 of 29. 5. 1990\n\n\fMany of the problems have a regional , transboundary\ndimension : the Vistula basin covers most East European\nthe Elbe crosses the Czech and Slovak\ncountries,\nthe Danube basin\nFederal Republic and Germany,\ncovers most of the southern countries : their pollution\nspreads into the Baltic, the North Sea and the Black\nSea. Figure 10 indicates the relative impact of\ndepositions of SO^ and NOx in Europe resulting from\nemissions from Europe as a whole in 1990. The\nimportance of taking a pan-European view in the case\nof these depositions can be deduced from Figure 1 1\nwhich indicates the projected depositions in 2000 on\nthe basis of the most stringent scenario for the EC (see\n''acidification') and expected reductions in Central\nand Eastern European countries ( based on present\nundertakings). Association Agreements\nOn 31 December 1991 the Community concluded\nAssociation Agreements with Poland , the Czech and\nSlovak Federal Republic and Hungary. They provide\nthe long-term framework within which relations\nbetween the Community and these countries will\ndevelop includingenvironmental co-operation. Similar\nAgreements with Roumania and Bulgaria are currently\nbeing negotiated. Trade and Co-operation Agreements\nwith the Baltic States and Albania, which will also\ncontain environmental provisions, are in preparation. PHARE Environment Sector Strategy and Regional\nProgrammes\nSince the very beginning, environmental protection\nhas been an integral part of the Community's PHARE\nprogramme ofassi stance for economic reform i n Central\nand Eastern Europe. Originally geared to help Poland\nand Hungary, the programme now includes the Czech\nand Slovak Federal Republic, Roumania, Yugoslavia\nand Bulgaria. The 1990 PHARE environment programmes were\nlaunched in Poland (22 Mecu), Hungary (25 Mecu),\nthe Czech and Slovak Republic (30 Mecu) and in the\nex-GDR (20 Mecu). Since these programmes compri sed\na relatively large number of different project activities,\nPHARE- financed technical assistance teams were set\nup in the respective Environment Ministries to assist\nwith programme preparation and implementation. The\nexperience of the PF1ARE 1990 programmes, based\nlargely on 'project shopping lists', underlined the\nneed for a more strategic approach to the environmental\nproblems of the region. Consequently an 'Environment Sector Strategy for\nCEE', covering a 3-year period,\nprepared by the\nCommission, has been endorsed by both the G-24\nEnvironment Working Group and the Environment\nMinisters' meeting at Dobris Castle in june 1 991. This\nstrategy identifies a number of policy objectives and\nincluding public awareness building,\npriorities\nstrengthening and expansion ofthe institutional , policy\nand regulatory frameworks and transfer of information\n\nand technology. This strategy provides the foundation\nfor the 1991 PHARE Environment Programmes for\nPoland (35 Mecu), Hungary ( 10 Mecu), Roumania (2\nMecu), Bulgaria ( 15 Mecu ) and the Czech and Slovak\nFederal Republic (5 Mecu ). In view of\nthe transboundary nature of most\nenvironmental problems, the first regional environment\nprogramme under PHARE , with a Community\ncontribution of 20 Mecu , was launched in 1991. This\nprogramme includes initiatives for the Danube Basin ,\nthe Black Triangle, the extension of CORINE activities\nto CEE, a Report on the State of the Environment in\nEurope and applied research. budget\n\nNuclear Safety and Radiation Protection\nUnder the PHARE Environment Programme, 15 Mecu\nhave been allocated from the 1991\nto a\nRegional Nuclear Safety Programme. The Technical\nAssistance Programme for the former USSR countries\nincludes an energy sector programme which provides\n53 MECU towards the management and safety of their\nnuclear installations. More wide-ranging possibilities\nwill be offered by the recent co-operation agreement\nwith the former USSR countries on nuclear safety as\nwell as from the Eurpean Energy Charter and\nconsequential Protocols. Looking to the Future\nThe task facing these governments is mountainous. Substantive,\nlasting, progress will only be possible\nwith assistance from the outside, especially from the\nCommunity. During the period covered by the current\nEnvironment Sector Strategy major changes in policy\nwill be determined ,\ninstitutional and regulatory\nframeworks and capabilities strengthened, and the link\nbetween environmental and economic reform\ninvestment needed to\nreinforced. But the financial\nreduce pollution to critical load levels and to move to\nthe sustainable use of natural resources in CEE will\nrequire resources which are clearly well beyond those\navailable under the PHARE and other G-24\nProgrammes. Consequently, as we move towards the year 2000,\nit\nwill increasingly be the private and public sectors in\nassume\nthe CEE countries themselves that must\nresponsibility for generating the required investments\nneeded to reduce pollution at source. This will require\nfundamental changes in pricing policies, substantial\ninvestments in new equipment and technologies, and\neven the complete closure of some of the very worst\npolluting production units. Extensive credits and\nforward-looking lending policies on the part of both\nnational and international banking institutions will be\ncalled for. the role of the recently\nestablished European Bank for Reconstruction and\nDevelopment ( EBRD) will be crucial ; indeed the EBRD\nhas already launched its first lending programmes in\nthe environment sector in the CEE. In this context\n\n90\n\n\fT\u00bbble 19 : INTERNATIONAL EN VIRON MENTAL ISSUES\n\nOBJECTIVES\n\nTARGETS UP TO 2000\n\nMEASURES REQUIRED\n\nPRINCIP1-E ACTORS\n\n1. Pr\u00e9servation oi\nBio -\n\nGlobal\ndiverrity\n\n* no further deterioration of ecosystems\nand habitats necessary to maintain\ndiversity of species and within species\n\n* Global Convention on Biodiversity\n\nInternational Community\n\n\u2022 National and Regional Strategies on\n\nAll Countries ( EC +- MS )\n\n2. Control of\n\n\u2022 Stabilisation of COj emissions ai 1990\n\nGlobal Warm *\nin g\n\nlevels\n\n* Limitation or r\u00e9duction of CH4 \u00e9missions\n\n* Increased energy effiency\n\n\u2022 Prolection/enhancement of Greenhouse\n\ngases reservoirs/sinks\n\nBiodiversity\n- pr\u00e9ventive approach , EIA\n- inventories\n- protection of forests , wetlands and other\nspecies - rich ecosystems\n\n* Increased technical and financial Assistance\n\nto Developing Countries\n\n\u2022 Valuation of biological resources\n\u2022 Global Gimate Change Convention\n\n- Protocol on CO, \u00e9mission r\u00e9ductions\n- Protocol cn limitation of CH4 emissions\n\u2022 Increased technical and financial Assistance\n\nto Developing and CEE Countries\n\n* National and Regional Strategies including\n\n- Inventories of Greenhouse gases + sinks\n\u2666 Increased energy effiency\n\u2022 Promotion of renewable sources of energy\n- Economic/ftscal incentives\n\nIndustrialized Countries\n(including EC)\nid\nInternational Community\n\nIndividual States ,\nRegions , including EC + MS\n\n3. Protection of\nOzone Laver\n\n\u2022 Phase-out of production and use of CFCs,\nHalons , Carbontetrachloride and I. I. I. tri chi ore thane\n\n\u2022 Full implemcntation of Montreal Protocol\n(incl. technical and financial assistance )\n\n* Review of scientific data and response\n\u2022 EC R\u00e9gulations\n\nInternational Community\n\nid\n\nEC + MS\n\n4. Protection of\n\n\u2022 Maintcnance/reinstalement of forests at\n\n\u2022 Global agreemenlon protection, development\n\nForests\n\nleast at 1990 levels\n\nand management of forests\n\nInternational Community\n+ ITTO\n\n* Substantia] reafforestation programmes\nfor tropical , temperate and boreal forest\n\nareas\n\n\u2022 Integrated\n\nprotection / sustainable\n\nmanagement of forest areas\n\n\u2022 Implementation of forest provisions in global\nconventions on biodiversity and climate\nchange\n\nid\n\n1 O \u201cTarget 2000\" on timber trade\n\n\u2022 1 1\n\u2022 Reduced limber consumption,\n\nincluding\npromotion of recycling of paper and board\ninternational\n\n\u2022 Restructuring of relevant\n\nProducing + importing\ncountries, ITTO, EC, GATT\nid\nInternational Community\n\norganisations e. g. ITTO, TFAP, UNEP\n\n\u2022 National\n\nstrategies\n\nfor promotion ,\n\nAll countries\n\nenhancement and protection of forests\n\n\u2022 Finalization of pilot programme on Brazilian\nrain-forest; extension to other forest areas\n\u2022 Increased technical and financial assistances\n\nto developing countries\n\nBrazil , EC, World Bank,\nG-7, other countries\nInternational Community\nEC\n\n\u2022 Monitoring of global forest coverage ,\n\nid\n\nincluding remote sensing\n\n5. Promotion of\nsustainable\ndevelopment\n\n* Relief of pressure on the environment in\ndeveloping countries resulting from\npopulation growth and poverty\n\n\u2022 Adoption and implementation of \u201cAgenda 21\u201d\n\u2022 Effective impl\u00e9mentation of provisions on\n\nUNCED participants\n\nsustainable development in Lom\u00e9 IV\n\nEC + ACP\n\n\u2022 Integration of environmental objectives\nand criteria into macro-economic reform\n\nprogrammes\n\n\u2022 Solution of critical problems for the\ndevelopment process in developing\ncountries and in Central and Eastern\nEurope\n\n- energy demand and supply\n- \u00eeand d\u00e9gradation + d\u00e9sertification\n- water resources\n\n\u2022 Effective implementation of environmental\nguidelines for co-operation between EC and\nALA countries\n\n\u2022 Effective implementation of NicosiaQiarter\n\u2022 PHARE national and regional programmes\n\u2022 Increased technical and financial assistance\nto all developing countries for die formulation\nand implementation of national and regional\nprogrammes for sustainable development\n- institutional strengthening\n- financial resources\n- scientific and technical\noperation and assistance\n\ntransfer, co \u00ac\n\n\u2022 Increased public health and environmental\n\nawareness\n- govemement, local and rcgio?ial authority\n\nand corporate decision-makers\n\n- general public\n\nEC + ALA\n\nMediterranean Countries\nEC, EIB , MAP. World Bank\nInternational Community\nEC , World Bank , G-24 , EIB ,\nMultinational\ncompanies , financial\ninstitutions , Research\nand Technological Bodies\n\nInternational Community\nIndividual countries\nNGOI\n\n* Codes of conduct for enterprise*\n\n\u2022 Investment\nfor:'vr <\n\nin environmental cleanup in\n-. med countries\n\nInternational Community\nEC , MS, Enterprises\nirtemaria Caanmty, BC. ftlARE, Warid\nJUL dfi. BcRD, Frspai inaoskn\n\n91\n\n\fChapter 13 :\nUNCED : The United Nations Conference on\nEnvironment and Development\n\nJust as the 1972 Conference in Stockholm created a\nnew awareness and concern about the environment at\nbroad international\nlevel, so too can the 1992 UN\nConference in Rio de Janeiro bring global political will\nand commitment\nto effective action into a new\ndimension. The basic aim of the Conference is to\nelaborate strategies and measures to halt and reverse\nthe effects ofenvi ron mental degradation and to promote\nsustainable and environmentally sound development\nin all countries. It should therefore mark the transition\nfrom a model ofdevelopment almost exclusively aimed\nat promoting economic growth towards a model\nenvironmental protection and rational\nwherein\nmanagement of natural\nresources will be taken on\nboard as integral componentsofdevelopment patterns. 1991 ,\n\nThe Community and its Member States are actively\nparticipating in UNCED's preparatory process. In\nthe Commission tabled a\nOctober\ncommunication to the Council (\"A common platform\n: Guidelines for the Community for UNCED 1 992\"(1 ))\nproposing some basic orientations to guide the\nthe Conference. This\nCommunity 's stance at\ncommunication provided the basis for the adoption of\nthe Council 's conclusions of 12 December 1991 on\nUNCED, where it was particularly stressed that,\nalthough sustainable development is important to all\ncountries, whateverthe present stateoftheireconomies,\nthere is a special responsibility on the more developed\ncountries, not only to pursue sustainability themselves,\nin a fair and\nbut also to assist other countries,\ntrust and\nconstructive partnership based on mutual\nequity, to make progress in the same direction. Apart\nfrom the expected adoption of framework\nconventions on climate change and biodiversity and of\na statement of principles on conservation and\ndevelopment of forests ( including a commitment to\nconclude a legally binding instrument at the earliest\npossible time) UNCED 's output should include two\nkey elements :\n\n*\n\n*\n\nAn \u201cEarth Charter* or Declaration of basic rights\nand obligations with respect to environment and\ndevelopment. An agenda for action, \u201cAgenda 21 \u201c, which will\nconstitute the agreed work programme of the\ninternational community for the period beyond\n1 992 and into the 21 st century. It\nis clear that the outcome of UNCED will deeply\ninfluence the Community's actions, policies and\nobjectives in the years to come. The implementation\nof the principles and measures to be agreed at the\nConference will require, first of all , a reassessment of\nthe Community's own internal policies; secondly, in\nconformity with the Dublin Declaration ,\nthe\nCommunity must continue its efforts to\npromote\ninternational action to protea the environment and to\nmeetthe specific needs and requirements of its partners\nin the developing world and in Central and Eastern\nEurope. In the case of the link between the ACP countries and\nthe Community under the Lom\u00a3 Convention ,\nthe\nUNCED process will deepen joint reflection on future\nprogrammes and will help to promote mutual priorities\nin matters of protection and conservation of the\nenvironment. The internal and external dimensions of Community\nenvironment policy are inextricably linked. Both\naspects will have to be duly integrated to build up a\ncoherent and effective response to the complex\nproblemson UNCED's agenda. Whateverthe remaining\nuncertainties about\nthe extent and depth of the\nenvironmental damage we are inflicting upon our\nplanet, the overwhelming evidence is that the threats\nand risks posed by current trends in consumption and\nbehaviour are much too great to justify. 92\n\nm\n\nSEC (91 ) 1693 final , 30. 10. 1991\n\n\fPART NI\n\nPriorities, Costs, Review\n\n93\n\n\fChapter 14 : Selection of Priorities\n\nBecause this Programme is as much about policy and\nstrategy designed to change current trends as about\nspecific actions, and because it is based on the principle\nofsubsidiarity and the concept of shared responsibil ity,\nthere is less a question of selection of priorities than a\nchoice of critical paths. Clearly,\nin the case of some\nlong-term objectives, as could apply in the transport\nand energy sectors for example, certain steps have to\nbe taken as a matter of priority now in order to produce\nIn\nthe desired results over an extended time-frame. cases involving interaction between the public and\nprivate sectors,\nrules or\nestablishment of guidelines by the former may be a\nprerequisite for actions by the latter, thereby indicating\ndifferent time-frames and priorities in a common field\nof action. the determination of\n\nHorizontal Measures\nIn order to change patterns of consumption and\nbehaviour in society so as to make them compatible\nwith the concept of sustainability' it will be necessary\nto strike a new balance between the perceived short\u00ac\nterm benefits of individual persons or bodies and the\nlong-term benefit of society as a whole. While the\nregulatory approach will continue to have an important\nfunaion it would not be able to achieve the desired\nbalance without the addition of complementary\nmeasures. To this end ,\nthe following horizontal\nmeasures are accorded priority :\n*\n\nImprovement of Data : basic information , trends,\nindicators;\nGetting the Prices Right : internal isation ofexternal\ncosts through valuation and costing mechanisms,\nincentives,\ncost/benefit analysis, economic/fiscal\nenvironmental auditing, civil liability, etc. ;\n\n*\n\n*\n\n*\n*\n\nInformation , Education and Training of all\neconomic actors including policy-makers,\nplanners, managers, workers, consumers;\nFull IntegrationofEnvironmentandOtherPolicies\nStria Impl\u00e9mentation and Enforcement\n\nPriority Fields of Action\nIn the endeavour to move towards a more sustainable\nbalance between human aaivity and socio-economic\ndevelopment and the resources and regenerative\ncapacity of nature, priority is accorded to the following\nfields of aaion :\n*\n\nSustainable Management of Natural Resources:\nsoil , water, natural areas and coastal zones\nIntegrated Pollution Control\nPrevention and Management of Waste\nReduaion in the Consumption of Non-Renewable\nEnergy\n\n*\n*\n*\n\n* More Efficient Management of Mobility\nImprovement of the Urban Environment\n*\nImprovement of Health and Safety, with special\n*\nrisk assessment and\nemphasis on industrial\nmanagement, nuclear safety and radiation\nproteaion. It will be noted that,\nin keeping with the principle of\nsubsidiarity and the concept of shared responsibility\nwhich permeates this Programme, many ofthe specific\naaions envisaged will fall to be carried out at levels\nother than that of the Community. Furthermore,\npursuant to Treaty requirements on integration of\nenvironment into other policies, some of the above\npriority areas will fall to be pursued partly, or primarily,\nwithin the ambit of policies such as those on agriculture,\nenergy and transport. 95\n\n\fChapter 15 : The Question of Cost\n\nGeneral consid\u00e9rations\nOne of the major shortcomings of economic policy in\nthe past has teen its failure to take into account or\nmeasure accurately the full external costs imposed on\nthe environment. Historically, the Earth's eco-system\nhas been treated as an infinite source of raw materials,\nenergy, water etc. Society's i ncome (or GDP) was seen to depend on ly on\ncapital and labour resources. However, it is now clear\nthat society's income today and in the future and the\nsustained production of goods and services depend\nnot just on the availabilityofcapitalandlabourbutalso\non natural and environment resources. Failure to\nproperly account for, cost and value the environment\nand environment policy may lead to a wholly\nmisleading understandingof society's wealth, its income\nand its real sustainable development potential. Policies which are designed to promote economic\ndevelopment are doomed to eventual failure if they do\nnot include the environmental din tendon as an integral\ncomponent. The climatic changes, acidification ,\ndesertification,\nflooding, toxic waste and pollution\nwhich are causing so much concern today can all be\ntraced back, to one extent or another, to short-sighted\nactions for economic gain which failed to take the\nlonger-term environmental costs into account. Just as\na sound business enterprise endeavours to maintain\nand increase its capital value and invests in facilities,\nexpands production , buys new equipment and\nimproves the quality of its services in order to protect\nits long-term health, so also Planet Earth requires\ncertain types of 'investments'\nin order to maintain\nitself as a healthy ecosystem and to ensure long-term,\nsustainable, economic growth. Future generations\ndepend on the investments we make now. Failure to\nmake these investments in due time could ultimately\nput whole regions and ultimately civilization itself out\nof business. Practical Difficulties in Costing the Environment and\nits Preservation\nFirstly, it is not possible to indicate the potential \"cost\u201d\nof the Programme as a whole to the Member States, the\nregional and local authorities and the economic actors. If the concept of sustainable development has any\ncredibility, the ultimate benefits should outweigh the\nso-called costs over time;\nin this context, the new\nTreaty (Article 1 30r. 3 ) requires that the real cost of\nnon-action be taken i nto account i n any su ch equation;\nif the costs of 'non-action' are not taken into account,\ntend to be biased against a\ndecision-making will\nsustainably optimal policy response. However,\nin\npractical terms, a number of major difficulties arise :\n\n( i )\n\nthe physical state of\n\nInformation about\nthe\nenvironment is often lacking or insufficient. There\nis uncertainty about the tolerance limits of the\nenvironment. ( ii ) Thecostsofenvironmental damage or the benefits\nof repairing the environment or costs of \"non-\naction \" are difficult to assess, with practical\ntechniques only just beginning to emerge. ( ii i) The val ue ofthe environment to future generations\nrequires the choice of an appropriate discount\nrate, itself a potentially controversial\n\nissue. iv) Unlike business which uses money as a common\nunit of measurement, there is no \"numeraire\" for\nenvironmental variables. This means it is difficult\nto weigh up true opportunity costs of improving\none environmental variable against another. Also\nbecause some environmental threats may damage\nhuman health and, secondly, because ultimately\nall environmental variables interl ink, environment\n\" holistic \"\npolicy requires an integrated or\napproach. (v) Community public policy choices are governed\nnot just by environmental costs and benefits (even\nif measurable) but by other principles enumerated\nin the Treaty (e. g. precautionary and preventive\nprinciples, social cohesion etc. )\n\nAlso, there should be a clear understanding that certain\naspects of the environment are or can be \"priceless\"\nand thereby not susceptible to normal economic costing\nmechanisms such as cost-benefit analysis or the free\nplay of market forces e. g. an adequate quality level of\ndrinking water,\nthe last giant panda or elephant, the\nsinging of birds, aspects of cultural heritage. Where\nsatisfactory economic evaluation and costing is not\npossible, qualitative evaluation is an indispensable\ntool for acceleratingthe full integration ofenvironmental\nconsiderations into the decision making process and\ntransition towards sustainable development To this\nend, instruments such asenvironmental indicators and\nenvironmental\nimpact assessments should be further\ndeveloped and refined. None of this is to deny the importance of costing\nenvironmental policiesand programmes. In accordance\nwith the Treaty, an analysis of the potential costs and\nbenefits of action and non-action will be undertaken in\ndeveloping specific formal proposals within the\nCommission. In developing such proposals every care\nwill be taken as far as possible to avoid the imposition\nof this disproportionate costs and to ensure that the\nbenefits will outweigh the costs over time. 96\n\n\fIn this latter respect,\n\nFuture Perspectives on Costing\nAs soon as may be possible, then, a broad and balanced\napproach to the design and the choice ofenvironmental\npriorities must be elaborated , based on the fullest\npossible assessment of all relevant costs and benefits. In the same vein, the selection of instruments should be\ntargets to be\nsuch as to allow given environmental\nreached with least costs. the\nmeasurement of costs should include the administrative\nor resource costs carried by the public sector and an\neconomic evaluation of the diminution of the natural\nresources stock as well as the compliance costs faced\nby enterprises and private households. The following\n5-point plan is advanced as a package to be pursued\nduring the term of the Programme in order to come to\nterms with the difficulties outlined above and to devise\nan appropriate and effective costi ng mechanism which\nwill serve the dual\nrequirement of environmental\nprotection and sustainable development :\n\n*\n\nAs a matter of priority, improved information on\nthe state ofthe envi ronment, appropriate indicators\nand tolerance capacities must be made available\nto policy makers in order to better define\nsustainable development parameters. Further intensive research efforts are needed to\nvalue and account\nfor the environment ;\ninternational coordination and burden-sharing\nshould be encouraged wherever possible in this\n\ndomain. Appropriate discount rates should be\nchosen to safeguard the rightsof future generations\nwith due allowance for uncertainty and risk. A Community cost-benefit methodology should\nbe drawn-up as a matter of urgency which could\nbe applied to all projects and policies with an\nenvironmental dimension. Consideration should\nbe given to whether the costs of \"shadow\"\nenvironmental\nrestoration projects should be\nincluded in economic cost-benefit analyses and\nunder what conditions such shadow projects\nshould be given preference (e. g. in conditions of\ngreat uncertainty). All Community environmental policies and other\npolicies havingan environmental dimension must\nbe costed as comprehensively as possible, taking\ni nto account al I costs and benefits of \" action \" and\n\" non-action\" in conformity with Article 130r of\nthe Treaty. Where possible priorities should be\ndetermined on the basis of where benefits are\nhighest. Environmentally adjusted ( i. e. to take account of\nresource stock of air, water, soil ,\nthe natural\nlandscape, heritage etc) national accounts should\nbe available on a pilot basis from 1 995 onwards\nfor all Community countries, with a view to formal\nadoption by the end of the decade. Chapter 16 : Review of the Programme\n\nThe road to sustainable development both within the\nCommunity and beyond will be a long one. This\nCommunity Programme isintented to initiate changes\nin behaviour and trends at Community level ,\nin the\nMember States, in the business world and at the level\nof the ordinary citizen. The approach adopted\nthroughout is to determine\n*\n\nobjectives, either specific or general , pointing\ntowards a sustainable development path;\ntargets for the period up to 2000 so that there will\nbe either a quantifiable or qualitative measure of\nprogress; and\nactions to be taken in the short-to- medium term to\ninitiate the journey and/or to accelerate progress. *\n\n*\n\nBecauseof inadequaciesin base-linedataand projected\ntrends there are bound to be uncertainties about the\nvalidity of certain targets or the urgency of certain\nactions. However, the Heads of State and Government\nof the Community have determined that, in aiming for\nsustainable development, the precautionary approach\nshould apply. While this Programme adopts the end of the decade as\nits horizon , the present intention is to have it \"rol I over\"\nat an intermediate stage. Apart from the expected\nimprovement in relevant information and availability\nof results from the Community's current\nresearch\nprogramme on the environment 0990-94), there will\nbe major reviews of Community policies on industry,\nenergy, transport, agriculture and the Structural Funds\nover the next few years. Applying the analogy of a large ship, which takes\nconsiderable time and space to manoeuvre, the 1 992 -\n95 phase should be viewed as a priming period,\nchanging the sense of direction and commitment, and\nthe 1 996-2000 phase as getting the operation under\nfull steam. Accordingly, a comprehensive reappraisal\nof the situation will be undertaken and an up-dated\nreport on the state of the environment and a review of\nthe policy-cum-strategy set out in this Programme will\nbe published before the end of 1 995. 97\n\n\fConclusion\n\nWe are at a turning point\nin the integration of\nissues into the other policies of the\nenvironment\nCommunity. The impact of the Internal Market, the\nneed to put sustainable development at the heart of\nother policies and to set an adequate example to the\nrest of the world require a major change in approach. This Programme itself constitutes a turning point. It sets\nout for the first time both a strategy and timetable for\nthe actions necessary to ensure that the Community\nitself moves towards a sustainable economy, and for\nassisting less-developed neighbours to do so also. This\nProgramme is not merely a task for the Community\ninstitutions: it will require the full partnership and full\nsupport of al I the actors necessary to make it work. The\nCommunity can only provide the framework. The achievement of this Programme and its objective\nof sustainable development constitutes one of the\nmajor political and economic challenges for the\nCommunity between now and the year 2000. It is the\nbasis for the 'more enlightened and more systematic\nthe\napproach to environmental management\" that\nEuropean Council\nin June 1990 felt was urgently\nrequired. To fail to rise to this challenge would not only\nbe detrimental to the present generation but would\nalso constitute a grave disservice to future generations. its citizens must take their\nThe Community and all\nresponsibilities in their own hands. It is above all a\nshared responsibility which requires collective action. THE ENVIRONMENT IS DEPENDENT ON OUR\nCOLLECTIVE\nTOMORROW 'S\nENVIRONMENT DEPENDS ON HOW WE ACT\nTODAY. ACTIONS ;\n\n98"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/35cb269e-e05e-4074-8b94-092e3ca0cd20", "title": "Question No 40 by Mr PIMENTA (H-0329/92) to the Commission: CO2 energy tax", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PIMENTA", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "anhydride,degree of pollution,energy consumption,pollution control measures,stratospheric pollution,tax", "workIds": "celex:91992H000329", "eurovoc_concepts": ["anhydride", "degree of pollution", "energy consumption", "pollution control measures", "stratospheric pollution", "tax"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/35cb269e-e05e-4074-8b94-092e3ca0cd20", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ba73d180-da37-443d-9306-0782e5b3ad3b", "title": "Support policies for business start-ups and the role of training : National reports from France, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom and synthesis report.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Cedefop,European Commission", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "Cedefop,aid to undertakings,business policy,job creation,management training,vocational training", "workIds": "PUB_HX7091702", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Cedefop", "aid to undertakings", "business policy", "job creation", "management training", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ba73d180-da37-443d-9306-0782e5b3ad3b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6397a01d-9851-4976-831b-dc90ca2de071", "title": "Question No 14 by Mr ALAVANOS (H-0337/92) to the Council: Plight of olive oil producers in Greece", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ALAVANOS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "Greece,agricultural production,farm income,fraud,olive oil", "workIds": "celex:91992H000337", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "agricultural production", "farm income", "fraud", "olive oil"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6397a01d-9851-4976-831b-dc90ca2de071", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/96a4cb1a-b2a3-4354-9fb7-a6cdb26c73e2", "title": "Question No 42 by Mr LINKOHR (H-0331/92) to the Commission: CO2 energy tax", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LINKOHR", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "anhydride,cement,chemical industry,cost-effectiveness analysis,energy consumption,glass industry,iron and steel industry,metallurgical industry,pollution control measures,pulp and paper industry,secondary sector,tax,tax collection", "workIds": "celex:91992H000331", "eurovoc_concepts": ["anhydride", "cement", "chemical industry", "cost-effectiveness analysis", "energy consumption", "glass industry", "iron and steel industry", "metallurgical industry", "pollution control measures", "pulp and paper industry", "secondary sector", "tax", "tax collection"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/96a4cb1a-b2a3-4354-9fb7-a6cdb26c73e2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/222d6ab9-3d2c-495f-9278-716c48b946ea", "title": "Question No 44 by Mr BETTINI (H-0333/92) to the Commission: CO2 energy tax", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BETTINI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "anhydride,cement,chemical industry,energy consumption,energy saving,glass industry,iron and steel industry,metallurgical industry,pollution control measures,pulp and paper industry,secondary sector,tax", "workIds": "celex:91992H000333", "eurovoc_concepts": ["anhydride", "cement", "chemical industry", "energy consumption", "energy saving", "glass industry", "iron and steel industry", "metallurgical industry", "pollution control measures", "pulp and paper industry", "secondary sector", "tax"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/222d6ab9-3d2c-495f-9278-716c48b946ea", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/63d34e52-ca36-4b94-97d7-8d2f93e5cee4", "title": "Report (Annex to the 1990 ECSC Annual Report) on the accounting and financial management of the European Coal and Steel Community.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Court of Auditors", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "ECSC operating budget,activity report,financial management,management accounting", "workIds": "PUB_MY7392708", "eurovoc_concepts": ["ECSC operating budget", "activity report", "financial management", "management accounting"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/63d34e52-ca36-4b94-97d7-8d2f93e5cee4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ec089703-6ee7-4c56-831d-ff61dfbd7258", "title": "Question No 41 by Mr LANNOYE (H-0330/92) to the Commission: CO2 energy tax", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LANNOYE", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "anhydride,civil liability,energy consumption,energy industry,energy-generating product,nuclear industry,nuclear power station,pollution control measures,price of energy,tax", "workIds": "celex:91992H000330", "eurovoc_concepts": ["anhydride", "civil liability", "energy consumption", "energy industry", "energy-generating product", "nuclear industry", "nuclear power station", "pollution control measures", "price of energy", "tax"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ec089703-6ee7-4c56-831d-ff61dfbd7258", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/628a41a7-5124-442f-b843-29893c81412a", "title": "Question No 87 by Mr ALAVANOS (H-0328/92) to the Commission: Selling off of the ' AGET-IRAKLIS' cement undertaking- findings of the Commission' s DG IV", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ALAVANOS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "Greece,cartel,cement,dominant position,merger,privatisation,takeover bid", "workIds": "celex:91992H000328", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "cartel", "cement", "dominant position", "merger", "privatisation", "takeover bid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/628a41a7-5124-442f-b843-29893c81412a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ef19de73-f982-4c14-9442-8484b1db7350", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 779/92 of 27 March 1992 re-establishing the levying of customs duties on products of category 37 (order No 40.0370), originating in Pakistan, to which the preferential tarriff arrangements set out in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3832/90 apply", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "Pakistan,restoration of customs duties,tariff preference,textile product", "workIds": "celex:31992R0779,oj:JOL_1992_084_R_0017_023", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Pakistan", "restoration of customs duties", "tariff preference", "textile product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ef19de73-f982-4c14-9442-8484b1db7350", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/486a5f5f-1d79-49dc-9b46-2a2f250a3c59", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 764/92 of 27 March 1992 repealing Regulation (EEC) No 3446/88 laying down transitional provisions on the utilization of advance- fixing certificates for the subsidy for oil seeds in Spain and Portugal", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "Portugal,Spain,form,oleaginous plant,production aid", "workIds": "celex:31992R0764,oj:JOL_1992_083_R_0019_029", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Portugal", "Spain", "form", "oleaginous plant", "production aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/486a5f5f-1d79-49dc-9b46-2a2f250a3c59", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ee713424-18e7-479f-91bc-9e5537e79710", "title": "Question No 43 by Mr BEUMER (H-0332/92) to the Commission: CO2 energy tax", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BEUMER,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "anhydride,cement,chemical industry,cost-effectiveness analysis,energy consumption,glass industry,iron and steel industry,metallurgical industry,pollution control measures,pulp and paper industry,secondary sector,tax,tax collection", "workIds": "celex:91992H000332", "eurovoc_concepts": ["anhydride", "cement", "chemical industry", "cost-effectiveness analysis", "energy consumption", "glass industry", "iron and steel industry", "metallurgical industry", "pollution control measures", "pulp and paper industry", "secondary sector", "tax", "tax collection"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ee713424-18e7-479f-91bc-9e5537e79710", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f184b17a-5b6a-47c6-823f-edc141fa0c44", "title": "Occupational profiles in the European steel industry.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Cedefop,European Commission", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "Cedefop,iron and steel industry,steel,vocational training", "workIds": "PUB_HX7392837", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Cedefop", "iron and steel industry", "steel", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f184b17a-5b6a-47c6-823f-edc141fa0c44", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/63f63184-b112-4a7f-84e0-de0c5cc14b52", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 762/92 of 27 March 1992 modifying Annex V to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "animal product,health control,pharmaceutical legislation,veterinary medicinal product,veterinary medicine", "workIds": "celex:31992R0762,oj:JOL_1992_083_R_0014_027", "eurovoc_concepts": ["animal product", "health control", "pharmaceutical legislation", "veterinary medicinal product", "veterinary medicine"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/63f63184-b112-4a7f-84e0-de0c5cc14b52", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/079ab8de-689d-44ab-808a-6e6f5d22c205", "title": "Question No 92 by Mr LANE (H-0348/92) to the Commission: Milk quota", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LANE", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "Ireland,agricultural quota,less-favoured region,milk", "workIds": "celex:91992H000348", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Ireland", "agricultural quota", "less-favoured region", "milk"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/079ab8de-689d-44ab-808a-6e6f5d22c205", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/368b99a8-0b37-4230-b46a-7d5d0e01ea6d", "title": "Question No 50 by Mr LANGER (H-0341/92) to the Commission: Direct aid for development projects for Palestinians in the occupied territories", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LANGER", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "EU aid,Israel,Palestine question,development plan,occupied territory", "workIds": "celex:91992H000341", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Israel", "Palestine question", "development plan", "occupied territory"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/368b99a8-0b37-4230-b46a-7d5d0e01ea6d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/70c7be17-fbf1-4369-a99e-8d30bd35c40d", "title": "Question No 45 by Mr REGGE (H-0334/92) to the Commission: CO2 energy tax", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,REGGE", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "anhydride,cement,chemical industry,energy consumption,export (EU),glass industry,iron and steel industry,metallurgical industry,pollution control measures,pulp and paper industry,tax", "workIds": "celex:91992H000334", "eurovoc_concepts": ["anhydride", "cement", "chemical industry", "energy consumption", "export (EU)", "glass industry", "iron and steel industry", "metallurgical industry", "pollution control measures", "pulp and paper industry", "tax"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/70c7be17-fbf1-4369-a99e-8d30bd35c40d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f616a0c9-78d8-4d53-90d1-dc2a0da31a58", "title": "Amended proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Part II of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "EU employment policy,EU national,equal treatment,free movement of workers,labour market", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0115,comnat:COM_1992_0115_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_107_R_0010_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU employment policy", "EU national", "equal treatment", "free movement of workers", "labour market"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f616a0c9-78d8-4d53-90d1-dc2a0da31a58", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dd366009-c621-43ce-b2c9-75494c0ee776", "title": "Amendment to the proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO SPEED LIMITING DEVICES OR SIMILAR SPEED LIMITING SYSTEMS FITTED TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF MOTOR VEHICLE", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "marketing standard,motor vehicle,safety device,speed control", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0078,comnat:COM_1992_0078_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_117_R_0009_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["marketing standard", "motor vehicle", "safety device", "speed control"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dd366009-c621-43ce-b2c9-75494c0ee776", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\n*|H*!\u00a3 \n\nC0M(92) 78 final - SYN 349 \n\nBrussels, 27 March 1992 \n\nAmendment to the proposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DIRECTIVE \n\nAPPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO \n\nSPEED LIMITING DEVICES OR SIMILAR SPEED LIMITING SYSTEMS \n\nFITTED TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF MOTOR VEHICLE \n\n(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 149(3) \nof the EEC-Treaty) \n\n\f- 2 -\n\n-929XS-\n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nOn 24 July 1991 the Commission sent the Council a proposal for a directive on \n\nspeed limiting devices or similar speed limiting systems for certain \n\ncategories of motor vehicle [COM(91) 240 final]. The proposal for a Council directive is based on Article 100a and takes the \n\nform of a separate directive under framework Directive 70/156/EEC in line with \n\nAnnex 11(12)(2)(4). On 13 December 1991 the European Parliament delivered its opinion on first \n\nreading and invited the Commission to adopt the amendments that had been \n\nproposed in pursuance of Article 149(3) of the EEC Treaty. The Commission accepted three of the amendments proposed by the European \n\nParliament. Those amendments concern the dates of entry into force of the \n\nDirective and the deletion of speed limits from the Directive. The dates of \n\nentry into force of the Directive have been postponed by three months in order \n\nto make them more realistic. The speed limits are set out in another draft \n\ndirective on the fitting and use of speed limiting devices by certain \n\ncategories of vehicle. The Commission has not adopted an amendment put forward in the form of an \n\narticle on research into any such device incorporating an intelligent cruise \n\ncontrol. However, it has been in fundamental agreement and a new recital has \n\nbeen added in order to conduct research activities as part of the Commission's \n\nDRIVE programme. - 3 -\n\n- * W 4 W 2 \u00ab * 2 \u00ebn \n\nAmendment of the \n\nproposal for a Council Directive on the approximation \n\nof the laws of the Member States relating to speed limiting devices or similar \n\nspeed limiting systems fitted to certain categories of motor vehicle. New recital: \n\n- \n\nthe following new recital should be inserted after the sixth recital: \n\n\"whereas it is reasonable and useful, as part of the DRIVE programme, to \n\nconduct research activities on an intelligent cruise control;\" \n\nArticle 5; \n\nbecomes Article 4. The date of 1 October 1992 becomes \"1 January 1993\" \n\nArticle 6 : \n\nbecomes Article 5. The date of 1 October 1993 becomes \"1 January 1994\" \n\nNew paragraph to be added to the end of Article 5: \n\n\"from 1 October 1994 Member States may prohibit the first placing in \n\nservice of vehicles the speed limiting devices of which do not meet the \n\nrequirements of this Directive\". Annex I: \n\nItem 1. 1, second paragraph becomes : \n\n\"motor vehicles the maximum design speed of which is less than the speed \n\nlaid down in Directive. /. /EEC on the fitting and use of speed \n\nlimiting devices by certain categories of motor vehicle within \n\nthe Community are not required to be fitted with a speed limiting device \n\nor system\". - \n\nItem 7. 2. 1 becomes : \n\n\"for the various categories of motor vehicle restricted speed V shall be \n\nestablished in accordance with Directive. /. /EEC*\". 8046/91 COM(91) 291 final \n\n\f\fM-\n\nISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 78 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n07 06 \n\nCatalogue number : CB-CO-92-082-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-41700-5 \n\nOffice for Officiai Publications of the European Communities \nL 2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fd7415b2-6ef9-4f1d-bd2f-103e1ae9843f", "title": "Question No 15 by Mr GERAGHTY (H-0344/92) to the Council: ' Irish' protocol to the Maastricht Treaty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GERAGHTY", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "Ireland,Treaty on European Union,referendum", "workIds": "celex:91992H000344", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Ireland", "Treaty on European Union", "referendum"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fd7415b2-6ef9-4f1d-bd2f-103e1ae9843f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/77968587-7d2d-4576-a1d0-24d7f817a44a", "title": "Question No 86 by Mr KOSTOPOULOS (H-0325/92) to the Commission: The sale of AGET-IRAKLIS", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "Greece,cartel,cement,dominant position,merger,privatisation,takeover bid", "workIds": "celex:91992H000325", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "cartel", "cement", "dominant position", "merger", "privatisation", "takeover bid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/77968587-7d2d-4576-a1d0-24d7f817a44a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/98910fed-c794-4e3b-8a1d-6f05907167a4", "title": "Question No 47 by Mrs BREYER (H-0336/92) to the Commission: CO2/energy tax", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BREYER,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "anhydride,cement,chemical industry,energy consumption,glass industry,intermediate consumption,iron and steel industry,metallurgical industry,pollution control measures,pulp and paper industry,tax", "workIds": "celex:91992H000336", "eurovoc_concepts": ["anhydride", "cement", "chemical industry", "energy consumption", "glass industry", "intermediate consumption", "iron and steel industry", "metallurgical industry", "pollution control measures", "pulp and paper industry", "tax"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/98910fed-c794-4e3b-8a1d-6f05907167a4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b6990ef7-5e07-4f2a-b933-3a07432c7183", "title": "Question No 39 by Mr HOWELL (H-0327/92) to the Commission: Agriculture", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,HOWELL", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "GATT,United States,common agricultural policy,customs duties,oleaginous plant,tariff negotiations", "workIds": "celex:91992H000327", "eurovoc_concepts": ["GATT", "United States", "common agricultural policy", "customs duties", "oleaginous plant", "tariff negotiations"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b6990ef7-5e07-4f2a-b933-3a07432c7183", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2a276d2c-cfb8-4cb2-8c38-52db84230832", "title": "Question No 46 by Mr BLANEY (H-0335/92) to the Commission: CO2/energy tax", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BLANEY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-27", "subjects": "anhydride,cement,chemical industry,energy consumption,export (EU),glass industry,iron and steel industry,metallurgical industry,pollution control measures,pulp and paper industry,secondary sector,tax", "workIds": "celex:91992H000335", "eurovoc_concepts": ["anhydride", "cement", "chemical industry", "energy consumption", "export (EU)", "glass industry", "iron and steel industry", "metallurgical industry", "pollution control measures", "pulp and paper industry", "secondary sector", "tax"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2a276d2c-cfb8-4cb2-8c38-52db84230832", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1b1eec04-ad47-4766-a426-e488e1182ff6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 663/92 by: Mrs Winifred EWING to the Commission. Sacking of 23 journalists for lawful industrial action", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "EWING,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "United Kingdom,communications profession,dismissal,labour law,press undertaking,right to strike,strike", "workIds": "celex:91992E000663", "eurovoc_concepts": ["United Kingdom", "communications profession", "dismissal", "labour law", "press undertaking", "right to strike", "strike"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1b1eec04-ad47-4766-a426-e488e1182ff6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/df370eea-7557-4610-9095-09c3beb97cb0", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 695/92 by: Mrs Christine ODDY to the Commission. Suicides of 15-year-olds in prison", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ODDY", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "United Kingdom,criminal law,infancy,juvenile court,legal cooperation,penal institution,prison system,suicide,young person", "workIds": "celex:91992E000695", "eurovoc_concepts": ["United Kingdom", "criminal law", "infancy", "juvenile court", "legal cooperation", "penal institution", "prison system", "suicide", "young person"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/df370eea-7557-4610-9095-09c3beb97cb0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cf409a43-2e09-4af3-bb91-d225b9dbbba6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 686/92 by: Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. Aquaculture and the provision of protected marine areas in Cantabria (Spain)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Cantabria,EU aid,Spain,aquaculture,development plan,protected area", "workIds": "celex:91992E000686", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Cantabria", "EU aid", "Spain", "aquaculture", "development plan", "protected area"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cf409a43-2e09-4af3-bb91-d225b9dbbba6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7dad9762-32c0-4268-8dcd-dbfc1ace23af", "title": "92/222/EEC: Commission Decision of 26 March 1992 concerning the animal health conditions and veterinary certification of imports of fresh meat from Bulgaria", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Bulgaria,fresh meat,health certificate,health control,import,meat processing industry", "workIds": "celex:31992D0222,oj:JOL_1992_108_R_0038_053", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Bulgaria", "fresh meat", "health certificate", "health control", "import", "meat processing industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7dad9762-32c0-4268-8dcd-dbfc1ace23af", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9cfe6d8a-d378-4d03-ad2b-d53d7eec8064", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 671/92 by: Mrs Annemarie GOEDMAKERS to the Commission. Commission recruitment policy", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GOEDMAKERS", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "European Commission,action programme,appointment of staff,gender equality,job access", "workIds": "celex:91992E000671", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Commission", "action programme", "appointment of staff", "gender equality", "job access"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9cfe6d8a-d378-4d03-ad2b-d53d7eec8064", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4cb29d53-7861-465d-8ae7-17db2c019a49", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 679/92 by: Mr Maxime VERHAGEN to the Commission. World Bank policy concerning pollutant industries", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VERHAGEN", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "World Bank,cost of pollution,dangerous substance,developing countries,environmental protection,industrial pollution,press release", "workIds": "celex:91992E000679", "eurovoc_concepts": ["World Bank", "cost of pollution", "dangerous substance", "developing countries", "environmental protection", "industrial pollution", "press release"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4cb29d53-7861-465d-8ae7-17db2c019a49", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bf651a8a-a7eb-4881-8e17-745ade9c63d2", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 676/92 by: Mr Jean PENDERS to the Commission. Boycott of Dutch goods and services", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PENDERS", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Greece,Netherlands,application of EU law,economic sanctions,intra-EU trade,private media,trade restriction", "workIds": "celex:91992E000676", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "Netherlands", "application of EU law", "economic sanctions", "intra-EU trade", "private media", "trade restriction"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bf651a8a-a7eb-4881-8e17-745ade9c63d2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0f69f4ad-aaf6-4d3f-b27d-af59d996b4d4", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 684/92 by: Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. Delays in the payment of grants under the ERASMUS programme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU programme,administrative cooperation,administrative procedure,competence of the Member States,education grant,university", "workIds": "celex:91992E000684", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU programme", "administrative cooperation", "administrative procedure", "competence of the Member States", "education grant", "university"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0f69f4ad-aaf6-4d3f-b27d-af59d996b4d4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/45afe999-8a60-4bd5-8c52-d4898da77b9b", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 681/92 by: Mr George PATTERSON to the Commission. Intervention subsidies for apples and pears", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PATTERSON", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "United Kingdom,common organisation of markets,cooperative,pip fruit,producer organisation,production aid", "workIds": "celex:91992E000681", "eurovoc_concepts": ["United Kingdom", "common organisation of markets", "cooperative", "pip fruit", "producer organisation", "production aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/45afe999-8a60-4bd5-8c52-d4898da77b9b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/66bba28e-7564-4b93-9ac6-aa8cda65c07f", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 666/92 by: Mr Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. Maintaining crops which enhance the landscape", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MEDINA ORTEGA", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EAGGF Guidance Section,agricultural productivity,countryside conservation,crop production,environmental protection,peripheral region,policy on agricultural structures", "workIds": "celex:91992E000666", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAGGF Guidance Section", "agricultural productivity", "countryside conservation", "crop production", "environmental protection", "peripheral region", "policy on agricultural structures"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/66bba28e-7564-4b93-9ac6-aa8cda65c07f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3a3f1225-d766-454e-a20c-6789499b292e", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) temporarily suspending autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties, subject to a specific ceiling, on imports into the Canary Islands of certain tobaccos falling within CN headings 2402 and 2403", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "common customs tariff,suspension of customs duties,tobacco,tobacco industry,transitional period (EU)", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0111(02),comnat:COM_1992_0111(02)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_100_R_0019_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["common customs tariff", "suspension of customs duties", "tobacco", "tobacco industry", "transitional period (EU)"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3a3f1225-d766-454e-a20c-6789499b292e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d34bdc26-1a23-4b95-b09e-d21b60e47037", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 664/92 by: Mr Wayne DAVID to the Commission. Export of torture equipment", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DAVID,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU law,United Kingdom,export,national law,torture", "workIds": "celex:91992E000664", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU law", "United Kingdom", "export", "national law", "torture"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d34bdc26-1a23-4b95-b09e-d21b60e47037", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/154c472c-690c-4b56-9f08-51ad273fe3ea", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 660/92 by: Giuseppe RAUTI, Gianfranco FINI, Cristiana MUSCARDINI and Antonio MAZZONE to the Council. Environmental risks in the Malagrotta area (Rome)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,FINI,MAZZONE,MUSCARDINI,RAUTI", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Latium,environmental impact,environmental protection,industrial hazard,industrial pollution,regional planning,waste disposal", "workIds": "celex:91992E000660", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Latium", "environmental impact", "environmental protection", "industrial hazard", "industrial pollution", "regional planning", "waste disposal"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/154c472c-690c-4b56-9f08-51ad273fe3ea", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ac08e83d-7f1d-4d9b-b8f0-f5bd53af2606", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 696/92 by: Mrs Christine ODDY to European Political Cooperation. Prisoner of conscience in Greece (Timotheos)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ODDY", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Greece,alternative service,conscientious objection,imprisonment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000696", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "alternative service", "conscientious objection", "imprisonment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ac08e83d-7f1d-4d9b-b8f0-f5bd53af2606", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d7b52ced-578a-4a50-8130-2013bcb0a168", "title": "92/216/EEC: Commission Decision of 26 March 1992 on the collection of data concerning competitions for equidae as referred to in Article 4 (2) of Council Directive 90/428/EEC", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "data collection,equidae,livestock farming,professional sport", "workIds": "celex:31992D0216,oj:JOL_1992_104_R_0077_046", "eurovoc_concepts": ["data collection", "equidae", "livestock farming", "professional sport"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d7b52ced-578a-4a50-8130-2013bcb0a168", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/27586cf4-1559-4d69-a13d-db364658ca64", "title": "92/218/EEC: Council Decision of 26 March 1992 adopting a specific research and technological development programme in the field of biotechnology (1990 to 1994)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU programme,biotechnology,research and development,research staff,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:31992D0218,oj:JOL_1992_107_R_0011_013", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU programme", "biotechnology", "research and development", "research staff", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/27586cf4-1559-4d69-a13d-db364658ca64", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3e8bad60-99a5-47a7-8d5b-92cf378707ee", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 668/92 by: Mr Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Compliance with measures to protect the Caretta-Caretta turtle", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ALAVANOS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Integrated Mediterranean Programmes,Ionian Islands,building permit,ecological balance,marine life,protected area,protection of animals,tourism", "workIds": "celex:91992E000668", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Integrated Mediterranean Programmes", "Ionian Islands", "building permit", "ecological balance", "marine life", "protected area", "protection of animals", "tourism"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3e8bad60-99a5-47a7-8d5b-92cf378707ee", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3cca39ed-79f8-41b9-ad7a-d31cb444be11", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 669/92 by: Mr Dimitrios NIANIAS to the Commission. Taxation and a code of practice for tradesmen", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,NIANIAS", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "competence of the Member States,labour code,self-employed person,tax evasion,tax system", "workIds": "celex:91992E000669", "eurovoc_concepts": ["competence of the Member States", "labour code", "self-employed person", "tax evasion", "tax system"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3cca39ed-79f8-41b9-ad7a-d31cb444be11", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bad70e34-4106-408d-b5dc-8cc25a196b03", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 675/92 by: Mr Michael WELSH to the Commission. Refund of VAT and the Eighth VAT Directive", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,WELSH", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Council of the European Union,EC Directive,VAT,application of EU law,redemption", "workIds": "celex:91992E000675", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Council of the European Union", "EC Directive", "VAT", "application of EU law", "redemption"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bad70e34-4106-408d-b5dc-8cc25a196b03", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c8329758-cebf-449d-80f1-44265e4a6eff", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 680/92 by: Mr Diego de los SANTOS L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. Aid to textile manufacturers in Andalusia", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DE LOS SANTOS LOPEZ,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Andalusia,State aid,aid system,aid to industry,clothing industry,intra-EU trade,product diversification,textile industry", "workIds": "celex:91992E000680", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Andalusia", "State aid", "aid system", "aid to industry", "clothing industry", "intra-EU trade", "product diversification", "textile industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c8329758-cebf-449d-80f1-44265e4a6eff", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b627eecc-de4b-443a-b212-e16b8384bafe", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 657/92 by: Mrs Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Establishment of EUROPOL", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BANOTTI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "European organisation,drug traffic,exchange of information,fight against crime,judicial cooperation,terrorism", "workIds": "celex:91992E000657", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European organisation", "drug traffic", "exchange of information", "fight against crime", "judicial cooperation", "terrorism"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b627eecc-de4b-443a-b212-e16b8384bafe", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c124ea89-89bb-4c64-9bf6-78103e85d95d", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 746/92 of 26 March 1992 fixing advance payments in respect of the production levies in the sugar sector for the 1991/92 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "sugar,sugar levy,white sugar", "workIds": "celex:31992R0746", "eurovoc_concepts": ["sugar", "sugar levy", "white sugar"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c124ea89-89bb-4c64-9bf6-78103e85d95d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7d80a38b-0ad9-46a3-b9e2-236973668afb", "title": "92/201/EEC: Commission Decision of 26 March 1992 authorizing the French Republic to permit temporarily the marketing of maize seed not satisfying the requirements of Council Directive 66/402/EEC", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "maize,marketing,seed", "workIds": "celex:31992D0201,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0067_062", "eurovoc_concepts": ["maize", "marketing", "seed"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7d80a38b-0ad9-46a3-b9e2-236973668afb", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4846481b-0bf2-4823-b1f4-1540d11311dd", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) temporarily derogating from implementation of Community anti-dumping measures on imports into the Canary Islands of certain sensitive products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Canary Islands,anti-dumping duty,audiovisual equipment,footwear industry,peripheral,reprography", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0109,comnat:COM_1992_0109_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_097_R_0011_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Canary Islands", "anti-dumping duty", "audiovisual equipment", "footwear industry", "peripheral", "reprography"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4846481b-0bf2-4823-b1f4-1540d11311dd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/361dfbab-391f-4c9e-83dd-8ce37f3caa93", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 694/92 by: Mrs Christine ODDY to the Commission. Doctors' hours in the UK", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ODDY", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU statistics,United Kingdom,doctor,night work,proposal (EU),rest period,working time", "workIds": "celex:91992E000694", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU statistics", "United Kingdom", "doctor", "night work", "proposal (EU)", "rest period", "working time"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/361dfbab-391f-4c9e-83dd-8ce37f3caa93", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9149803c-f6c6-4937-9a5e-a99a2eaef67b", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 661/92 by: Mr Alexander LANGER to the Commission. Regional and ethnic languages and cultures", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LANGER", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU aid,cultural heritage,ethnic group,heritage protection,linguistic group,regional culture", "workIds": "celex:91992E000661", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "cultural heritage", "ethnic group", "heritage protection", "linguistic group", "regional culture"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9149803c-f6c6-4937-9a5e-a99a2eaef67b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/af883c39-f45d-4cd0-a35a-550b5a48de4f", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 677/92 by: Mr Jean PENDERS to European Political Cooperation. Boycott of Dutch goods and services", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PENDERS", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Greece,Netherlands,broadcasting,goods and services,international sanctions", "workIds": "celex:91992E000677", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "Netherlands", "broadcasting", "goods and services", "international sanctions"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/af883c39-f45d-4cd0-a35a-550b5a48de4f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d5ebacf6-fc21-4188-8dfd-6b16aa956dfb", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 655/92 by: Mrs Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Basking shark", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BANOTTI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU statistics,competence of the Member States,fishery resources,over-exploitation of resources,quantity of fish landed,research project,scientific research,sea fish,territorial waters", "workIds": "celex:91992E000655", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU statistics", "competence of the Member States", "fishery resources", "over-exploitation of resources", "quantity of fish landed", "research project", "scientific research", "sea fish", "territorial waters"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d5ebacf6-fc21-4188-8dfd-6b16aa956dfb", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cc7979ad-2d43-4852-9b1a-a1193dbcbfcd", "title": "Council Resolution of 26 March 1992 on the extension of the system for observing the markets for the carriage of goods by rail, road and inland waterway", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_legislative_other_oj_c,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "carriage of goods,fact-finding mission,inland waterway transport,market,rail transport,road transport", "workIds": "celex:31992Y0407(01),oj:JOC_1992_086_R_0004_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["carriage of goods", "fact-finding mission", "inland waterway transport", "market", "rail transport", "road transport"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cc7979ad-2d43-4852-9b1a-a1193dbcbfcd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bba6ce1f-dacc-4a1b-b593-eea23a55ef52", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 700/92 by Mr Juan de la C\u00c1MARA MART\u00cdNEZ to the Council. Community textile industry", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DE LA CAMARA MARTINEZ,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU industrial policy,clothing industry,competitiveness,economic analysis,economic support,textile industry", "workIds": "celex:91992E000700", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU industrial policy", "clothing industry", "competitiveness", "economic analysis", "economic support", "textile industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bba6ce1f-dacc-4a1b-b593-eea23a55ef52", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2e3d6c53-5590-442e-9d3c-5339aa06e110", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 693/92 by: Mrs Christine ODDY to the Commission. Standing conference on racial equality in Europe (SCORE)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ODDY", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "economic support,immigration,political asylum,racial discrimination,support policy", "workIds": "celex:91992E000693", "eurovoc_concepts": ["economic support", "immigration", "political asylum", "racial discrimination", "support policy"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2e3d6c53-5590-442e-9d3c-5339aa06e110", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fa5e27cc-c152-4ffa-bb36-121d04092256", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 652/92 by: Mrs Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. General system for the recognition of diplomas/ degrees", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BANOTTI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU Member State,admission to examinations,application of EU law,diploma,higher education,recognition of diplomas", "workIds": "celex:91992E000652", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU Member State", "admission to examinations", "application of EU law", "diploma", "higher education", "recognition of diplomas"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fa5e27cc-c152-4ffa-bb36-121d04092256", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3478cc29-910f-4d34-a23f-0f861e571b45", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 692/92 by: Mrs Christine ODDY to the Commission. Migrants' Forum", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ODDY", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "budget,conference proceedings,ethnic group,immigration,project management", "workIds": "celex:91992E000692", "eurovoc_concepts": ["budget", "conference proceedings", "ethnic group", "immigration", "project management"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3478cc29-910f-4d34-a23f-0f861e571b45", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d786a723-9845-45e8-9df3-42205afccc6b", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 662/92 by: Mrs Imelda READ to the Commission. European companies", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,READ", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EEC Treaty,European undertaking,freedom to provide services,right of establishment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000662", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EEC Treaty", "European undertaking", "freedom to provide services", "right of establishment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d786a723-9845-45e8-9df3-42205afccc6b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5b3809d6-5762-4711-8c3a-ce51f5eadd32", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 674/92 by Jaak VANDEMEULEBROUCKE to the European Political Cooperation. Setting up embassies in the former Soviet Union", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VANDEMEULEBROUCKE", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Eastern Bloc countries,European integration,European political cooperation,Nigeria,Treaty on European Union,USSR,diplomatic representation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000674", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Eastern Bloc countries", "European integration", "European political cooperation", "Nigeria", "Treaty on European Union", "USSR", "diplomatic representation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5b3809d6-5762-4711-8c3a-ce51f5eadd32", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/03b848d1-8015-4c82-883e-ad12a713ad26", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 654/92 by: Mrs Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Age requirement for positions in the Commission", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BANOTTI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "European Commission,competition (EU),job access,professional qualifications,promotion,recruitment,scientific profession,servant (EU)", "workIds": "celex:91992E000654", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Commission", "competition (EU)", "job access", "professional qualifications", "promotion", "recruitment", "scientific profession", "servant (EU)"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/03b848d1-8015-4c82-883e-ad12a713ad26", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d6ee0038-042e-4b45-9eb1-1dc34d2d4390", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 687/92 by: Mrs Christine ODDY to the Commission. River Acheloos (Greece) and Mesolonghi wetlands", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ODDY", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Central Greece,EU financing,ecological balance,environmental impact,hydraulic works,impact study,watercourse", "workIds": "celex:91992E000687", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central Greece", "EU financing", "ecological balance", "environmental impact", "hydraulic works", "impact study", "watercourse"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d6ee0038-042e-4b45-9eb1-1dc34d2d4390", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9948a2e4-33cd-452e-ab0d-02531826eea5", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 699/92 by Mr Juan de la C\u00c1MARA MART\u00cdNEZ to the Commission. Community textile industry", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DE LA CAMARA MARTINEZ,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU publication,European industrial area,clothing industry,conference proceedings,exchange of information,industrial restructuring,report,textile industry", "workIds": "celex:91992E000699", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU publication", "European industrial area", "clothing industry", "conference proceedings", "exchange of information", "industrial restructuring", "report", "textile industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9948a2e4-33cd-452e-ab0d-02531826eea5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d602d380-1501-4c5c-92fe-873ad25b0f25", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 656/92 by: Mrs Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Pilot programme for multilateral school partnerships", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BANOTTI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "comparative education,education policy,educational exchange,limited circulation,new educational methods,project evaluation,teaching", "workIds": "celex:91992E000656", "eurovoc_concepts": ["comparative education", "education policy", "educational exchange", "limited circulation", "new educational methods", "project evaluation", "teaching"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d602d380-1501-4c5c-92fe-873ad25b0f25", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/06ab1b25-9985-41c2-acc3-2d28d15cad19", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 653/92 by: Mrs Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Liberia -Human Rights Abuses", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BANOTTI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Liberia,civil war,emergency aid,human rights,public safety", "workIds": "celex:91992E000653", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Liberia", "civil war", "emergency aid", "human rights", "public safety"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/06ab1b25-9985-41c2-acc3-2d28d15cad19", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/79204039-2b24-4226-aeb3-22f07deb909e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 698/92 by Mr Juan de la C\u00c1MARA MART\u00cdNEZ to the Council. Support for farmers", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DE LA CAMARA MARTINEZ,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU agricultural market,farmers' income,hill farming,less-favoured region,market support,reform of the CAP,rural development,young farmer", "workIds": "celex:91992E000698", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU agricultural market", "farmers' income", "hill farming", "less-favoured region", "market support", "reform of the CAP", "rural development", "young farmer"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/79204039-2b24-4226-aeb3-22f07deb909e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/20f2e44c-f796-45ad-ac87-e6f87372fafc", "title": "92/202/EEC: Council Decision of 26 March 1992 on the conclusion of the 1986 International Cocoa Agreement", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "accession to an agreement,cocoa,international agreement,the EU's international role", "workIds": "celex:31992D0202,oj:JOL_1992_089_R_0030_034", "eurovoc_concepts": ["accession to an agreement", "cocoa", "international agreement", "the EU's international role"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/20f2e44c-f796-45ad-ac87-e6f87372fafc", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/61478869-7c3d-4932-88b3-2a6a31f4cbee", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 658/92 by: Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Monitoring of the activities of educational and cultural institutions", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "European integration,continuing education,cultural organisation,cultural prize,free service", "workIds": "celex:91992E000658", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European integration", "continuing education", "cultural organisation", "cultural prize", "free service"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/61478869-7c3d-4932-88b3-2a6a31f4cbee", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4c21a2db-f52e-4002-ab9e-1322ee2f8849", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 685/92 by: Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. ERASMUS programme: level of grants and the cost of living", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU programme,cost of living,education grant,hiring", "workIds": "celex:91992E000685", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU programme", "cost of living", "education grant", "hiring"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4c21a2db-f52e-4002-ab9e-1322ee2f8849", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a16654c9-3944-43bf-86f8-a22691187167", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 659/92 by: Giuseppe RAUTI, Gianfranco FINI, Cristiana MUSCARDINI and Antonio MAZZONE to the Commission. Environmental risks in the Malagrotta area (Rome)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,FINI,MAZZONE,MUSCARDINI,RAUTI", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Latium,application of EU law,environmental impact,environmental protection,impact study,industrial pollution", "workIds": "celex:91992E000659", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Latium", "application of EU law", "environmental impact", "environmental protection", "impact study", "industrial pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a16654c9-3944-43bf-86f8-a22691187167", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/073b9b82-3e50-4339-9b6e-395dce212f15", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 673/92 by: Mr Jaak VANDEMEULEBROUCKE to the Commission. ' Europe against Cancer' programme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VANDEMEULEBROUCKE", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "action programme,administrative personnel,budget,cancer,geographical mobility,jute,medical research,public health", "workIds": "celex:91992E000673", "eurovoc_concepts": ["action programme", "administrative personnel", "budget", "cancer", "geographical mobility", "jute", "medical research", "public health"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/073b9b82-3e50-4339-9b6e-395dce212f15", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1811941d-05f3-41e8-8bf2-15710da573ed", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of 26 March 1992 on access to the market in the carriage of goods by road within the Community to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU Member State,carriage of goods,intra-EU transport,road transport,transport licence", "workIds": "celex:31992R0881,oj:JOL_1992_095_R_0001_023", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU Member State", "carriage of goods", "intra-EU transport", "road transport", "transport licence"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1811941d-05f3-41e8-8bf2-15710da573ed", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bb930ff4-6d9d-4d14-a3cb-756210477186", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 667/92 by: Mr Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. Promotion of industries for the processing of natural resources", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MEDINA ORTEGA", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Canary Islands,EAGGF Guidance Section,aquaculture,cannery,fish,fisheries policy,fishery product,preserved product,short-term monetary support", "workIds": "celex:91992E000667", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Canary Islands", "EAGGF Guidance Section", "aquaculture", "cannery", "fish", "fisheries policy", "fishery product", "preserved product", "short-term monetary support"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bb930ff4-6d9d-4d14-a3cb-756210477186", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/696a9714-609b-446c-8a33-44359efb71ec", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 665/92 by: Mr Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA to the Commission. Grids and networks which do not spoil the landscape", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MEDINA ORTEGA", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Canary Islands,EU financing,countryside conservation,transmission network", "workIds": "celex:91992E000665", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Canary Islands", "EU financing", "countryside conservation", "transmission network"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/696a9714-609b-446c-8a33-44359efb71ec", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ac274ded-5e73-4a0c-bc4c-d55173d71e2a", "title": "Sixth Council Directive 92/20/EEC of 26 March 1992 on summertime arrangements", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "summertime", "workIds": "celex:31992L0020,oj:JOL_1992_089_R_0028_033", "eurovoc_concepts": ["summertime"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ac274ded-5e73-4a0c-bc4c-d55173d71e2a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6646c8c8-69b6-49c1-ab7d-27e85fa43d39", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 745/92 of 26 March 1992 fixing the number of young male bovine animals which may be imported on special terms in the second quarter of 1992 and derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 2377/80 in respect of that quarter as regards the allocation of the quantities available", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "fattening,free circulation,import levy,import licence", "workIds": "celex:31992R0745,oj:JOL_1992_082_R_0028_030", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fattening", "free circulation", "import levy", "import licence"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6646c8c8-69b6-49c1-ab7d-27e85fa43d39", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b669a795-f817-47cd-a05d-5217701dbc60", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2504/88 on free zones and free warehouses", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Canary Islands,French overseas department and region,Madeira,customs warehouse,free zone", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0112,comnat:COM_1992_0112_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_097_R_0014_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Canary Islands", "French overseas department and region", "Madeira", "customs warehouse", "free zone"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b669a795-f817-47cd-a05d-5217701dbc60", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7a0d21bb-07e4-42b9-9857-797b0b4825da", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 670/92 by: Mr Paul STAES to the Commission. Delats in payment of ESF subsidies", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,STAES", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "European Social Fund,business data processing,data transmission,decentralisation,decision-making,payment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000670", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Social Fund", "business data processing", "data transmission", "decentralisation", "decision-making", "payment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7a0d21bb-07e4-42b9-9857-797b0b4825da", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/622d06f5-d90f-4983-add9-7e8ebfc63bfe", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the Canary Islands", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Canary Islands,common customs tariff,industrial product,suspension of customs duties,transitional period (EU)", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0111(01),comnat:COM_1992_0111(01)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_100_R_0014_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Canary Islands", "common customs tariff", "industrial product", "suspension of customs duties", "transitional period (EU)"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/622d06f5-d90f-4983-add9-7e8ebfc63bfe", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f567c8e8-e2b0-403b-92ff-d19460b34c75", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 683/92 by: Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. Payment system under the ERASMUS programme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU aid,EU programme,European Commission,cheque,contract,education grant,payment,university", "workIds": "celex:91992E000683", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "EU programme", "European Commission", "cheque", "contract", "education grant", "payment", "university"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f567c8e8-e2b0-403b-92ff-d19460b34c75", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/35833ae6-2c72-4371-937d-31cb8d8d756a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 682/92 by: Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. Beneficiaries of the ERASMUS programme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "EU programme,EU statistics,education grant,student mobility", "workIds": "celex:91992E000682", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU programme", "EU statistics", "education grant", "student mobility"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/35833ae6-2c72-4371-937d-31cb8d8d756a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7860197d-ffe0-4e22-8eab-9e54b9c9590f", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 678/92 by: Mr Rinaldo BONTEMPI to the Commission. Staff other than officials", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BONTEMPI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "European official,job application,provision of services,recruitment,relationship,self-employed person,servant (EU)", "workIds": "celex:91992E000678", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European official", "job application", "provision of services", "recruitment", "relationship", "self-employed person", "servant (EU)"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7860197d-ffe0-4e22-8eab-9e54b9c9590f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b51b776e-3b04-426a-afbb-38cbed2c4821", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 697/92 by Mr Juan de la C\u00c1MARA MART\u00cdNEZ to the Commission. Support for farmers", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DE LA CAMARA MARTINEZ,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Structural Funds,afforestation,business start-up,farmers' income,less-favoured agricultural area,production aid,reform of the CAP,rural tourism,youth unemployment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000697", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Structural Funds", "afforestation", "business start-up", "farmers' income", "less-favoured agricultural area", "production aid", "reform of the CAP", "rural tourism", "youth unemployment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b51b776e-3b04-426a-afbb-38cbed2c4821", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7cc81c8e-ce3a-46e0-8c9e-1a4acaee0358", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 651/92 by: Mr Hemmo MUNTINGH to the Commission. Sulphur-free diesel fuel", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUNTINGH", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Malaysia,anhydride,chemical process,coal,diesel fuel,industrial building,motor fuel,natural gas,production cost,sulphur", "workIds": "celex:91992E000651", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Malaysia", "anhydride", "chemical process", "coal", "diesel fuel", "industrial building", "motor fuel", "natural gas", "production cost", "sulphur"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7cc81c8e-ce3a-46e0-8c9e-1a4acaee0358", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c2e4951e-806d-4481-96aa-4cd9670539aa", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 689/92 by: Mrs Christine ODDY to the Commission. Local taxes on shops and small businesses in France and UK", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ODDY", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "France,United Kingdom,business tax,local tax,restriction on competition,small and medium-sized enterprises", "workIds": "celex:91992E000689", "eurovoc_concepts": ["France", "United Kingdom", "business tax", "local tax", "restriction on competition", "small and medium-sized enterprises"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c2e4951e-806d-4481-96aa-4cd9670539aa", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d46d8846-d77d-4651-9af0-7b6a59c7b6b4", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 690/92 by: Mrs Christine ODDY to the Commission. Provision of public libraries in EC countries and literacy rate", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ODDY", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,EU Member State,EU statistics,Northern Europe,bookshop,document acquisition,elimination of illiteracy,public library,sale", "workIds": "celex:91992E000690", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "EU Member State", "EU statistics", "Northern Europe", "bookshop", "document acquisition", "elimination of illiteracy", "public library", "sale"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d46d8846-d77d-4651-9af0-7b6a59c7b6b4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/28219001-3392-414c-bc7f-3f971630dae1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 672/92 by: Mrs Annemarie GOEDMAKERS to the Council. Appointment of members of the Euratom Supply Agency Advisory Committee", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GOEDMAKERS", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "Euratom Supply Agency,advisory committee (EU),appointment of staff,equal treatment,gender equality", "workIds": "celex:91992E000672", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Euratom Supply Agency", "advisory committee (EU)", "appointment of staff", "equal treatment", "gender equality"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/28219001-3392-414c-bc7f-3f971630dae1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0db77ece-6318-463f-86c8-598c02c315fe", "title": "Agricultural income 1991.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission,Eurostat", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "European Community,agricultural market,cash flow,income,statistics", "workIds": "PUB_CA7392748", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Community", "agricultural market", "cash flow", "income", "statistics"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0db77ece-6318-463f-86c8-598c02c315fe", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1d62799-c392-4792-8f8d-f9ca9591fc0d", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 688/92 by: Mrs Christine ODDY to the Commission. European Emergency Humanitarian Aid Office", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ODDY", "date": "1992-03-26", "subjects": "European organisation,aid to refugees,coordination of aid,emergency aid,food aid,humanitarian aid,recruitment,third country", "workIds": "celex:91992E000688", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European organisation", "aid to refugees", "coordination of aid", "emergency aid", "food aid", "humanitarian aid", "recruitment", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1d62799-c392-4792-8f8d-f9ca9591fc0d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3a4259dc-1ab8-42a9-a9de-6a3a31e207bb", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 734/92 of 25 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2290/83 laying down provisions for the implementation of Articles 50 to 59b and Articles 63a and 63b of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "exemption from customs duties,scientific apparatus", "workIds": "celex:31992R0734,oj:JOL_1992_081_R_0015_018", "eurovoc_concepts": ["exemption from customs duties", "scientific apparatus"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3a4259dc-1ab8-42a9-a9de-6a3a31e207bb", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/83f0cf27-f432-41e8-8bf2-0ca052475f7a", "title": "OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Annual Report on the Implementation of the Reform of the Structural Funds (1990)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#opinion_eesc,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Economic and Social Committee", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "Structural Funds,activity report,fight against unemployment,implementation of the budget,regional development", "workIds": "celex:51992AC0363,oj:JOC_1992_106_R_0020_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Structural Funds", "activity report", "fight against unemployment", "implementation of the budget", "regional development"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/83f0cf27-f432-41e8-8bf2-0ca052475f7a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f57df287-071b-4196-855e-a117fc150723", "title": "Structure et activit\u00e9 de l'industrie : donn\u00e9es r\u00e9gionales 1987-1988.,Stucture and activity of industry : data by regions 1987-1988.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Eurostat", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "miscellaneous industries,region,statistical nomenclature,statistics", "workIds": "PUB_CA7291099", "eurovoc_concepts": ["miscellaneous industries", "region", "statistical nomenclature", "statistics"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f57df287-071b-4196-855e-a117fc150723", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2a42f964-5d04-4492-9fc8-ac564b7b1810", "title": "92/321/EEC: Commission Decision of 25 March 1992 concerning aid awarded by Spain to Intelhorce SA (ex Industrias Textiles de Guadalhorce, SA), now called GTE General Textil Espa\u00f1a, SA, a State-owned producer of cotton textiles (Only the Spanish text is authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "Spain,State aid,capital increase,public sector,restriction on competition,textile industry", "workIds": "celex:31992D0321,oj:JOL_1992_176_R_0057_057", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Spain", "State aid", "capital increase", "public sector", "restriction on competition", "textile industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2a42f964-5d04-4492-9fc8-ac564b7b1810", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/41e33841-d920-474d-9951-f5d3a2bd8214", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 716/92 of 25 March 1992 repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2287/83 laying down provisions for the implementation of Article 127 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "tariff nomenclature,tariff policy", "workIds": "celex:31992R0736,oj:JOL_1992_081_R_0020_020", "eurovoc_concepts": ["tariff nomenclature", "tariff policy"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/41e33841-d920-474d-9951-f5d3a2bd8214", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/579b1f70-6517-4769-bf50-49a85d154dc9", "title": "Gains nets des industries manufacturi\u00e8res dans la Communaut\u00e9 1991.,Net earnings of manual workers in manufacturing industry in the Community 1991.,Nettoverdienst der Arbeiter im verarbeitenden Gewerbe in der Gemeinschaft 1991.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Eurostat", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "income,manufactured goods,small industry,statistics", "workIds": "PUB_CA7291318", "eurovoc_concepts": ["income", "manufactured goods", "small industry", "statistics"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/579b1f70-6517-4769-bf50-49a85d154dc9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4b27acc2-245c-4dc8-bc44-e52ab1398e3a", "title": "92/317/EEC: Commission Decision of 25 March 1992 on State aid in favour of Hilaturas y Tejidos Andaluces SA, now called Mediterr\u00e1neo T\u00e9cnica Textil SA and its buyer (Only the Spanish text is authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "Spain,State aid,capital increase,public sector,restriction on competition,textile industry", "workIds": "celex:31992D0317,oj:JOL_1992_171_R_0054_034", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Spain", "State aid", "capital increase", "public sector", "restriction on competition", "textile industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4b27acc2-245c-4dc8-bc44-e52ab1398e3a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d74c8175-cdfe-4e1b-a616-dca16df3d9da", "title": "92/212/EEC: Commission Decision of 25 March 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/30.717-A - Eurocheque: Helsinki Agreement) (Only the French text is authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "cheque,competition,electronic money,inter-company agreement", "workIds": "celex:31992D0212,oj:JOL_1992_095_R_0050_043", "eurovoc_concepts": ["cheque", "competition", "electronic money", "inter-company agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d74c8175-cdfe-4e1b-a616-dca16df3d9da", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/371b3dc0-9020-4b9e-bf4e-f0184f4a7462", "title": "OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 90/531/EEC on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sector", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#opinion_eesc,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Economic and Social Committee", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "energy distribution,energy production,energy transport,means of public conveyance,public contract,telecommunications", "workIds": "celex:51992AC0355,oj:JOC_1992_106_R_0006_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["energy distribution", "energy production", "energy transport", "means of public conveyance", "public contract", "telecommunications"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/371b3dc0-9020-4b9e-bf4e-f0184f4a7462", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2bcc263e-730f-4f92-af4f-316fa9401c78", "title": "92/318/EEC: Commission Decision of 25 March 1992 on aid granted by Spain to Industrias Mediterraneas de la Piel SA (Imepiel) (Only the Spanish text is authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "Spain,State aid,aid to industry,footwear industry,restriction on competition", "workIds": "celex:31992D0318,oj:JOL_1992_172_R_0076_063", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Spain", "State aid", "aid to industry", "footwear industry", "restriction on competition"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2bcc263e-730f-4f92-af4f-316fa9401c78", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/932384c2-3ddc-443f-a1da-e7bb3df9f869", "title": "OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the conclusion of a Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Finland on a research and technological development programme in the field of renewable raw materials: forestry and wood products (including cork), Forest", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#opinion_eesc,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Economic and Social Committee", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "Finland,research and development,scientific cooperation,silviculture,wood product", "workIds": "celex:51992AC0358,oj:JOC_1992_106_R_0012_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Finland", "research and development", "scientific cooperation", "silviculture", "wood product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/932384c2-3ddc-443f-a1da-e7bb3df9f869", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e58b5d01-d4d7-40ad-a963-f2b0b1472464", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 735/92 of 25 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2289/83 laying down provisions for the implementation of Articles 70 to 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "disabled person,exemption from customs duties", "workIds": "celex:31992R0735,oj:JOL_1992_081_R_0018_019", "eurovoc_concepts": ["disabled person", "exemption from customs duties"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e58b5d01-d4d7-40ad-a963-f2b0b1472464", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ada81a58-371b-47c3-a7b4-354b9a9e3400", "title": "The internal market : a challenge for the wholesale trade.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion,European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "EU Member State,economic statistics,single market,wholesale trade", "workIds": "PUB_CM7091322", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU Member State", "economic statistics", "single market", "wholesale trade"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ada81a58-371b-47c3-a7b4-354b9a9e3400", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d58b41a1-8157-4d1a-87ec-cb73a1b90089", "title": "OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of thee Member States concerning equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#opinion_eesc,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Economic and Social Committee", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "EU trade mark,drilling equipment,explosive,harmonisation of standards,product safety", "workIds": "celex:51992AC0356,oj:JOC_1992_106_R_0009_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU trade mark", "drilling equipment", "explosive", "harmonisation of standards", "product safety"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d58b41a1-8157-4d1a-87ec-cb73a1b90089", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4f9214bc-0edf-413d-bb29-1c2b948c7225", "title": "Amended proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) on access to the market for the carriage of goods by road in the European Community to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more Member States", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "carriage of goods,common transport policy,intra-EU transport,road transport,transport licence", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0104,comnat:COM_1992_0104_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["carriage of goods", "common transport policy", "intra-EU transport", "road transport", "transport licence"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4f9214bc-0edf-413d-bb29-1c2b948c7225", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(92)104 final \n\nBrussels, 25 March 1992 \n\nAmended proposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\non access to the market for \nthe carriage of goods \nby road in the European \n\nCommunity \n\nto or from the territory of a \n\nMember State \n\nor passing across the territory \n\nof one or more Member States \n\nmm \n\nI* :\u2022\u2022'\u2022 \n\n(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 149(3) \nof the EEC-Treaty) \n\n\f-i~ \n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\n1. On 26 July 1991 the Commission presented to the Council a proposal for \na Council Regulation on access to the market for the carriage of goods \nby road in the European Community to or from the territory of a Member \nState or passing across the territory of one or more Member States. The proposal in particular aims at adopting the necessary measures for \nthe application of the Regulation (EEC) No. 1841/88, amending \nRegulation (EEC) No. 3164/76 on the Community quota for the carriage of \ngoods by road between Member States. The main objectives were the \nrealization of the freedom to provide services and the introduction of \nthe Community licence, without quantitative restrictions and based on \nqualitative criteria. 2. The Economic and Social Committee has given its opinion of 2 7 December \n\n1991. 3. The European Parliament, during its plenary session of 17 January 1992, \n\nhas approved the proposal of the Commission but has introduced a \ncertain number of amendments. 4. The Commission accepts those amendments of the Parliament which contain \n\nelements of enrichment or contribute to clarity. Although not \naccepting the amendments which tend to impose certain environmental \ncriteria to the vehicles covered by the Community licence, the \nCommission is ready to examine the opportuneness of such an approach \ntaking into account the environmental requirements which are to be met \nby the road transport vehicles of the near future. - 2 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nProposal for a \nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \non access to the market for \nthe carriage of goods \nby road in the European \n\nCommunity \n\nto or from the territory of a \n\nMember State \n\nor passing across the territory \n\nof one or more Member States \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN \nCOMMUNITIES \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty \nestablishing the European \nEconomic Community, and in \nparticular Article 75 thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal \nfrom the Commission*, \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of \nthe European Parliament2, \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of \nthe Economic and Social \nCommittee^, \n\nWhereas the establishment of a \ncommon transport policy entails, \ninter alia laying down common \nrules applicable to access to \nthe market for intra-Community \ncarriage of goods by road on the \nterritory of the Community; \nwhereas those rules should be \nestablished in such a way as to \ncontribute to the attainment of \nthe internal transport market; \n\n1 OJ pm \n2 OJ pm \n3 OJ pm \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nWhereas these uniform \narrangements for market access \nalso entail bringing about \nfreedom to provide services by \neliminating all restrictions \nimposed on the provider of \nservices as a result of his \nnationality or the fact that he \nis established in a Member State \nother than that where the service \nis to be provided; \n\nWhereas, following the judgment \nof the Court of Justice of 22 May \n1985 in Case 13/831 and the \nconclusions adopted on 28 and 29 \nJune 1985 by the European Council \nconcerning the Commission's \ncommunication on the completion \nof the internal market, the \nCouncil adopted Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1841/882 amending Regulation \n(EEC) No 3164/763, which relates \nto access to the market for the \ninternational carriage of goods \nby road; \n\nWhereas Article 4 bis of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3164/76, as \ninserted by Regulation (EEC) No \n1841/88, provides, with effect \nfrom 1 January 1993 and with \nregard to the kinds of transport \noperation referred to herein, to \nabolish transport quotas and to \ncreate a free market founded not \non quantitative restrictions but \non qualitative criteria to be \nsatisfied by road hauliers; \n\n1 European Court Reports 1985, p. 1556 \n2 OJ No L 357, 29. 12. 1976, p. 1 \n3 \n\nOJ No L 357, 29. 12. 1976, p. 1 \n\n\f- 4 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nWhereas pursuant to Article 4b of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3164/76, as \ninserted by Regulation (EEC) No \n1841/88, the Council has to adopt \nthe measures necessary to \nimplement the aforementioned \nArticle 4a; \n\nWhereas with regard to the rules \nfor applying the access \narrangements it is necessary to \nmake intra-Community carriage of \ngoods by road conditional on the \npossession of a quota-free \nCommunity transport \nauthorization; \n\nWhereas it is important to ensure \nthat the authorizations are \nissued to hauliers who offer all \nthe qualitative guarantees needed \nfor the proper functioning of the \nmarket concerned; \n\nWhereas it is necessary to \nspecify the conditions for \nissuing and withdrawing the \nauthorizations and their scope, \nperiod of validity and details of \nusage, \n\nWhereas access to the market based solely \non qualitative criteria is one component \nof the internal transport market which \nhas yet to be completed, equally \nimportant components of which are: \n\n\f- 5 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nfree cabotage \nharmonization in the fiscal and \nsocial fields \nharmonization of technical \nstandards taking into consideration \nenvironmental criteria \nthe crisis mechanism \nmarket observation \nthe elimination of border controls \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\nThis Regulation shall apply to \nintra-Community carriage of goods \nby road for hire or reward. Article 2 \n\nFor the purposes of this \nRegulation: \n\n\"intra-Community transport \noperation\" means journeys \nundertaken by a laden or \nunladen vehicle during which \nthe vehicle travels from one \nMember State to another or \ncrosses a border between the \nCommunity and a non-member \ncountry with all or part of \nthe journey being effected on \nCommunity territory; \n\n\f- 6 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\n\"vehicle\" means a motor \nvehicle, a trailer, a semi \ntrailer or a coupled \ncombination of vehicles used \nexclusively for the carriage \nof goods. Article 3 \n\nFrom 1 January 1993 the \ntransport operations referred \nto in Article 1 shall be \nsubject to a system of quota-\nfree Community authorizations \nwhich will entitle holders to \naccess to the market for the \ntransport operations in \nquestion without any \nquantitative restrictions. Any haulier carrying goods by \nroad for hire or reward who: \n\n- \n\nis established in a \nMember State in \naccordance with the \nlegislation of that \nState, \n\n- is entitled in that \n\nState, in accordance with \nits legislation and that \nof the Community, to \ncarry out intra-Community \ncarriage of goods by \nroad, \n\npossesses a Community \nhaulier's authorization, \n\n\f- 7 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nshall be allowed to effect \nthe transport operations \nreferred to in Article 1. Article 4 \n\nThe Community haulier's authorization \nThe Community haulier's \nreferred to in Article 3 shall replace \nauthorization referred to in \nArticle 3 shall replace the \nthe authorization, licence, permit or any \nauthorization, licence, permit or other facility that hauliers must possess \nany other facility that hauliers prior to the entry into force of this \nmust possess in order to carry \nout international transport \noperations. regulation in order to carry out \ninternational transport operations, \n\nArticle 5 \n\nThe Community haulier's \nauthorization referred to in \nArticle 3 shall be issued by \nthe competent authorities of \nthe Member State in which the \nhaulier is established within \nthe meaning of Article 52 of \nthe EEC Treaty. Certified true copies of the \nauthorization referred to in \nArticle 3 shall be issued by \nthe same competent \nauthorities as those referred \nto in paragraph 1 above. - 8 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nThe authorization shall correspond \nto the model set out in the Annex, \nwhich also lays down the conditions \nof use. In case that the holder of the \nauthorization is not the owner of \nthe vehicle used, a document should \naccompany the vehicle defining the \nright of the holder of the \nauthorization in respect to that \nvehicle. The authorization shall \ncorrespond to the model set \nout in the Annex, which also \nlays down the conditions for \nusing them. The authorization shall be \nmade out in the haulier's \nname and may not be \ntransferred by the latter to \nthird parties. Each authorization or \ncertified true copy thereof \nmay be used for only one \nvehicle at a time. In the \ncase of a coupled combination \nof vehicles it shall \naccompany the motor vehicle; \nit shall cover the whole of \nthe coupled combination of \nvehicles even if the trailer \nor semi-trailer is not \nregistered or put into \ncirculation in the name of \nthe authorization holder or \nis registered or put into \ncirculation in a different \nMember State or in another \nState belonging to the \nEuropean Conference of \nMinisters of Transport. The authorization, or a \ncertified true copy thereof, \nmust be produced whenever \nrequired by an authorized \ninspecting officer. - 9 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nArticle 6 \n\nThe authorization shall be \nissued for a specified period \nand shall be valid for a \nmaximum of six years. An authorization whose \nvalidity is to due to expire \nshall be wholly or partly \nextended at the holder's \nrequest for a maximum of six \nyears. Article 7 \n\nWhenever an application for \nthe issue or extension of an \nauthorization is lodged, and \nat the latest three years \nafter the issue or extension \nthereof, the competent \nauthorities shall verify: \n\nwhether the haulier \nsatisfies, or still \nsatisfies, the conditions \nfor access to the \nprofession of road \nhaulier in intra-\nCommunity transport \noperations, and \n\n\f- 10 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nwhether the haulier is \ncomplying with his tax, \nsocial, technical and \nadministrative \nobligations or, in the \ncase of an application \nlodged by a new haulier, \nwhether it can be \nassumed, on the basis of \ngeneral rules approved \nbeforehand, that the \nhaulier will comply with \nthe said obligations. 2. Where the conditions in \n\nparagraph 1 were not or not \nfully satisfied the competent \nauthorities shall reject the \napplication by means of a \nreasoned decision or shall \nlay down, in respect of the \nissue or extension of the \nauthorization, compliance \nwith certain appropriate \nobligations until the said \nconditions are satisfied. - 11 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nEven if the conditions referred to in \nArticle 7 have been satisfied the \ncompetent authorities may, on the basis \nof existing national legislation, after \nfirst consulting the Commission, attach \nconditions to the issue extension or \nretention of the authorizations provided \nthat those conditions are warranted on \ngrounds of safety, protection of the \nenvironment, and the application of \nsocial rules, and that they are \ncompatible with the right of \nestablishmpent and freedom to provide \nservices without distorting competition. Article 8 \n\nEven if the conditions referred \nto in Article 7 have been \nsatisfied the competent \nauthorities may, on the basis of \nrules in force, after first \nconsulting the Commission, attach \nconditions to the issue or \nextension of the authorizations \nprovided that those conditions \nare warranted on grounds of \nsafety, protection of the \nenvironment, the haulier's \ntechnical and financial capacity \nand the application of social \nrules, and that they are \ncompatible with the right of \nestablishment and freedom to \nprovide services without \ndistorting competition. Article 9 \n\n1. The competent authorities \n\nshall withdraw the \nauthorization where the \nhaulier: \n\nno longer satisfies the \nconditions laid down in \nArticle 3(2) or no longer \nsatisfies the conditions \nand obligations referred \nto in Articles 7 and 8, \n\nhas supplied incorrect \ninformation in relation \nto the data required for \nthe issue or extension of \nthe authorization, or \n\n\f- 12 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \n\naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nhas been convicted, after -\nthe issue of the \nauthorization, of serious \nand repeated infringement \nof the provisions \ngoverning transport and \ntraffic, notably of the \nrules on access to the \nmarket, driving and rest \nperiods, the weights and \ndimensions of vehicles, \nthe maintenance, \nequipment and technical \ninspection of vehicles, \ndrivers' licences, road \nsafety and the highway \ncode. has been convicted, after the issue \nof the authorization or during \nperiodic checks, of serious and \nrepeated infringement of the \nprovisions governing transport and \ntraffic, notably of the rules on \naccess to the market, driving and \nrest periods, the weights and \ndimensions of vehicles, the \nmaintenance, equipment and \ntechnical inspection of vehicles, \ndrivers' licences, road safety, the \nhighway code and the speed limiting \ndevice (if obligatory for the \nvehicle in question). The Member States determine the \nconditions under which the \nauthorizations may, by way of \nderogation from the provisions of \nArticle 3 paragraph 2 and articles \n7 and 8, be maintained on a \ntemporary basis, for a maximum \nperiod of one year, in the event of \nthe death or physical or legal \nincapacity of the natural person \nengaged in the activity of haulier \nor of the natural person who \nsatisfies the conditions of good \nrepute and professional competence \nmentioned in the Aticle 3 paragraph \n1 under a) and c) of the Directive \n74/561<1) of the Council of 12 \nNovember 1974. (1) OJ No L 308, 19. 11. 1974, \n\np. 18 \n\n\f- 13 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nArticle 10 \n\nBefore 31 January each year \nMember States shall inform the \nCommission of the number of \nhauliers possessing an \nauthorization and of the number \nof certified true copies issued \nby the competent authorities in \ntheir country during the \npreceding year. Article 11 \n\n1. The Member States shall give \neach other mutual assistance \nto ensure the application and \nmonitoring of this \nRegulation. To this end, they shall \ncommunicate to each other: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nthe names of hauliers \npossessing an \nauthorization, and \n\nthe number of certified \ntrue copies issued to \neach of these hauliers. Where the competent \nauthorities of a Member State \nlearn of an infringement of \nthis Regulation committed by \nthe holder of an \nauthorization issued in \nanother Member State, the \nMember State on whose \nterritory the infringement \nwas ascertained shall notify \nit to the authorities of the \nMember State that issued the \nauthorization. - 14 -\n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \n\naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nThe competent authorities \nshall communicate to each \nother and to the Commission, \nevery three months, all the \ninformation in their \npossession on the penalties \napplied in respect of those \ninfringements no later than \nfour months following the \ndate on which a definitive \npenalty has been imposed. The penalties referred to in \nparagraph 2 above must be \nnon-discriminatory, \ncommensurate with the \nseverity of the infringement, \nand make it possible inter \nalia to detain the vehicle \nfor at least two days but not \nexceeding six days where the \nfollowing infringements have \nbeen committed: exceeding \ndriving hours, overloading \nthe vehicle, exceeding the \nvehicle's authorized \ndimensions, excess speed, \nfailure to maintain and equip \nthe vehicle as required. The penalties referred to in \nparagraph 2 must be non \ndiscriminatory, commensurate with \nthe severity of the infringement, \nand make it possible inter alia to \ndetain the vehicle for at least two \ndays but not exceeding six days \nwhere the following infringements \nhave been committed: exceeding \ndriving hours, overloading the \nvehicle, exceeding the vehicle's \nauthorized dimensions, excess \nspeed, failure to maintain and \nequip the vehicle as required and \nfraudulent actions involving the \nspeed limiting device (if \nobligatory for the vehicle in \nquestion). If there has been a serious \nbreach of this Regulation the \nauthorization shall be \nwithdrawn immediately. If there have been serious and \nrepeated breaches of this \nregulation the authorization shall \nbe withdrawn immediately. - 15 w \n\nInitial proposition \nof the Commission \n\nModified proposition \naccording to article 149/3 CEC \n\nArticle 12 \n\nThe following shall be repealed! \n\n- \n\n- \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 3164/76| \nArticles 1 and 2 of Directly\u00a9 \n75/130/EEC<1>; \nthe First Directive of 23 \nJuly 1962(2), except as \nregards carriage on own \naccount as defined in point \n11 of the Annex I theretof \nDirective 65/269/EEC<3>; \nDecision 80/48/EEC<4). Article 13 \n\nThe Member States shall \ncommunicate to the Commission the \nmeasures taken in relation to the \nimplementation of this \nRegulation. Article 14 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into \nforce on 1 January 1993. This Regulation shall be binding \nin its entirety and directly \napplicable in all Member States, \n\nDone at Brussels, \n\nFor the \nCouncil \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\nThe \nPresident \nOJ No L 48, 22. 2. 1975, pf \n31 \nOJ No 70, 6. 8. 1962; p. 2005/62 \nOJ No 88, 24. 5. 1965, pf \n1469/65 \nOJ No L 18, 24. 1. 1980, \np. 21 \n\n\f-n-\n\nThe annex remains unchanged \n\nANNEX \n\nEUROPEAN COMMUNITY \n(a) \n\n(DIN A4) \n(first page of the authorization) \n\n(Text in the official language(s) of the \nMember State issuing the authorization) \n\nState issuing the authorization \nDistinguishing sign \n\nName of the authority \n\nor responsible body \n\nAuthorization* No \nfor the intra-Community carriage of goods by road for hire or reward \n\nThis authorization entitles2 \n\nto carry goods by road for hire or reward by any route, using a single \nvehicle or a coupled combination of vehicles, from any Member State of the \nEuropean Community to any other Member State, or between a Member State and \na non-Community country, or between non-Community countries in respect of \nthat part of the journey effected on the territory of the Community, and to \nmove such vehicle or combination unladen over any part of the territory of \nthe Community. Conditions foi\u2014tree of the authorization: \n1 The distinguishing signs are: \nBelgium (B), Denmark (DK), \nGermany (D), \n(GR), Spain (E), France (F), \nIreland (IRL), Italy (I), \n\nGreece \n\nLuxembourg (L), \n\nNetherlands (NL), Portugal (P), \nUnited Kingdom (GB). 2,. Name or business. name,and full \nThis authorization is valid \naddress of the haulier. -n-\n\nto. 3 \n\nfrom \nIssued in \non \n\n3 Signature and stamp of the \nauthority or body issuing the \nlicence. -1f-\n\n(b) \n(second page of the authorization) \n\n(text in the official language(s) of the \nMember State issuing the language) \n\nGENERAL PROVISIONS \n\nThis authorization is valid for the intra-Community carriage of goods by \nroad for hire or reward. It entitles the holder to carry out, on the territory of the Community, \nand, where appropriate, on the conditions laid down therein: \n\n- \n- \n\ntransport operations between Member States \nthe following types of transport operation in respect of that part of \nthe journey effected in the Community: \n\ntransport operations starting in a Member State and ending in a \nnon-Community country \ntransport operations starting in a non-Community country and ending \nin a Member State \ntransport operations between non-Community countries passing in \ntransit through the territory of one or more Member States \n\n- \n\nunladen journeys by vehicles. The authorization is personal to the holder and non-transferable. It may be withdrawn by the competent authority of the Member State which \nissued it, notably where the haulier: \n\n- \n- \n\n- \n\nhas not complied with all the conditions for using the authorization; \nhas supplied incorrect information with regard to the data needed for \nthe issue or extension of the authorization; \nhas been convicted, after the issue of the authorization, of serious \nand repeated infringements of the provisions governing transport and \ntraffic, notably of the rules on access to the market, driving periods \nand rest periods, the weights and dimensions of vehicles, the \nmaintenance, equipment and technical inspection of vehicles, drivers' \nlicences, road safety and the highway code. The authorization may be used for only one vehicle at a time1. In the \ncase of a coupled combination of vehicles it must accompany the tractive \nunit; it covers the coupled combination of vehicles even if the trailer or \nsemi-trailei'\u2014is not registered or authorized to use the roads in the name \n1_ Vehicle, means^a single vehicle \nof the authorization holder or if it is registered or put into circulation \nin a different Member State or in another State belonging to the European \nvehicles. ^. ^. , \n\n\f- 1* \n\nConference of Ministers of Transport. The authorization must be kept in the vehicle. The authorization must be produced whenever required by an authorized \ninspecting officer. The holder must comply on the territory of each Member \nState with the laws, regulations and administrative provisions in force in \nthat State, particularly with regard to transport and traffic. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM (92) 104 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n07 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-115-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42124-X \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0ca6e4d6-3cae-44fb-bc98-7f5585cdb38a", "title": "Earnings : industry and services.,Gains : industrie et services.,Retribuciones : industria y servicios.,Retribuzioni : industria e servizi.,Verdienste : produzierendes Gewerbe und Dienstleistungen.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Eurostat", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "European Community,income,service,small industry,statistics", "workIds": "PUB_CA7291302", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Community", "income", "service", "small industry", "statistics"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0ca6e4d6-3cae-44fb-bc98-7f5585cdb38a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a2cb41bf-33f0-4544-907c-7f82224a0884", "title": "Impediments to parallel trade in pharmaceuticals within the European Community.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "Germany,Netherlands,United Kingdom,diversification of exports,free movement of goods,import,pharmaceutical product,trade policy,wholesale trade", "workIds": "PUB_CM7391489", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Germany", "Netherlands", "United Kingdom", "diversification of exports", "free movement of goods", "import", "pharmaceutical product", "trade policy", "wholesale trade"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a2cb41bf-33f0-4544-907c-7f82224a0884", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0b3a0f8a-12e2-4022-a210-bf1549df461e", "title": "Amendment to the proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) ON THE TYPE-APPROVAL OF TWO OR THREE-WHEEL MOTOR VEHICLES", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "EC conformity marking,approval,marketing standard,motor vehicle,technical standard,two-wheeled vehicle", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0042,comnat:COM_1992_0042_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_097_R_0010_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EC conformity marking", "approval", "marketing standard", "motor vehicle", "technical standard", "two-wheeled vehicle"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0b3a0f8a-12e2-4022-a210-bf1549df461e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 42 final - SYN 331 \n\nBrussels, 25 March 1992 \n\nAmendment to the proposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\nON THE TYPE-APPROVAL OF TWO OR THREE-WHEEL MOTOR VEHICLES \n\n(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 149(3) \nof the EEC-Treaty) \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nOn 15 March 1991 the Commission sent the Council a proposal for a Regulation \n\non the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles [COM(90)669 final -\n\nSYN 331]. On 11 December 1991 the European Parliament delivered its opinion on first \n\nreading and Invited the Commission to amend its propsal in accordance with the \n\nprovisions of Article 149(3) of the EEC Treaty. The seven amendments accepted either partly or in their entirety by the \n\nCommission concern the following: \n\ntwo recitals (the sixth and the eighth): the deletion of the sixth recital \n\nis intended to reduce the two categories of moped to a single category. The amendment of the eighth recital is aimed at the presentation, by the \n\nCommission, of the 24 separate regulations within a single document. That \n\namendment has been accepted in part in that the Commission has agreed to \n\nsubmit the proposals in packages containing the greatest possible number \n\nof proposals; \n\nthree articles (Articles 1, 4 and 14): the amendment of Article 1 concerns \n\nthe addition of details regarding the exclusion from the scope of the \n\nRegulation of vehicles intended for use in competitions; the amendment of \n\nArticle 4 is intended to improve the wording of the reference to vehicles \n\ncovered by the provisions relating to the checking of production \n\nconformity, and the amendment of Article 14, i. e. deletion of (3), is \n\nintended - Just like the sixth recital - to reduce the two categories of \n\nmoped to a single category; \n\nAnnex I: the addition of two new indents is intended to apply or exclude \n\nthe requirements of certain separate regulations in respect of \n\nlow-performance mopeds. That amendment has been accepted in part in that \n\nthe principle but not the wording put forward is accepted. -3, -\n\nAmendment to the proposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\nON THE TYPE-APPROVAL OF TWO OR THREE-WHEEL MOTOR VEHICLES \n\nSixth recital : \n\ndeleted. Eighth recital : \n\non the third line following the words \"separate regulations\" the following \n\nshould be added: \"and whereas the relevant proposals will be submitted in \n\npackages containing the greatest possible number of those proposals\". Article 1(1)(2) third indent: \n\nshould read: \"vehicles intended for use in competitions either on or off \n\nroads\". Article 4(2): \n\nthe words \"placed on the market and used\" are replaced by the words \"put \n\non sale and newly brought into service\" and the words \"sold and used\" by \n\nthe words \"and sold new\". Article 14(3): \n\ndeleted. Annex I : \n\nthe following subparagraph should be added at the end of this Annex: \n\n\"The separate regulations will provide for specific requirements relating \n\nto reduced-performance mopeds, in other words mopeds fitted with pedals \n\nand an auxiliary power unit developing not more than 1 kW, and having a \n\nmaximum design speed not exceeding 25 km/h. These separate requirements \n\nwill relate, in particular, to the components and characteristics referred \n\nto under headings Nos 19, 20, 29, 32, 33, 34, 41, 43 and 46 in this \n\nAnnex. \" \n\n\f\f- M-\n\nISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 42 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n07 \n\nCatalogue number : CB-CO-92-057-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-41301-8 \n\nOffice for Officiai Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c315de56-beab-4f3d-abe8-632767014ca1", "title": "Fischerei : j\u00e4hrliche Statistiken 1991.,Fisheries : yearly statistics 1991.,P\u00eache : statistiques annuelles 1991.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Eurostat", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "fishing fleet,fishing statistics", "workIds": "PUB_CA7291398", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fishing fleet", "fishing statistics"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c315de56-beab-4f3d-abe8-632767014ca1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7ba2c65d-5893-4b01-be16-bf7f60a3c1c4", "title": "Das europ\u00e4ische Versicherungswesen in der Perspektive des einheitlichen Binnenmarkts.,European insurance and the single market.,L'assurance europ\u00e9enne dans la perspective du march\u00e9 unique.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Eurostat", "date": "1992-03-25", "subjects": "European Community,financial analysis,insurance,legal status,statistics", "workIds": "PUB_CA7091128", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Community", "financial analysis", "insurance", "legal status", "statistics"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7ba2c65d-5893-4b01-be16-bf7f60a3c1c4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1fba7b29-f22a-417f-abf6-a2107da357c6", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1678/85 fixing the conversion rates to be applied in agriculture", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "primary sector,representative rate", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(52),comnat:COM_1992_0094(52)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0094_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["primary sector", "representative rate"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1fba7b29-f22a-417f-abf6-a2107da357c6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9452bbc8-8924-4815-b86a-24a3edb2dbee", "title": "92/199/EEC: Commission Decision of 24 March 1992 amending Decision 91/409/EEC authorizing Member States to permit temporarily the marketing of forest reproductive material not satisfying the requirements of Council Directive 66/404/EEC", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "United Kingdom,seed,seedling", "workIds": "celex:31992D0199,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0065_060", "eurovoc_concepts": ["United Kingdom", "seed", "seedling"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9452bbc8-8924-4815-b86a-24a3edb2dbee", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/91b2b0ce-a49b-460a-80cc-03c6b36a8d57", "title": "Bodies within national Parliaments specializing in European Community affairs.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "EU law,European Parliament,national law,national parliament,parliamentary committee", "workIds": "PUB_AX5589124", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU law", "European Parliament", "national law", "national parliament", "parliamentary committee"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/91b2b0ce-a49b-460a-80cc-03c6b36a8d57", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4a2de43f-e8cf-4134-832e-47c29c487f00", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) adjusting, for the second time, the system of aid for cotton introduced by Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "Greece,accession to the European Union,cotton,farm price support,guarantee threshold,protocol to an agreement", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(18),comnat:COM_1992_0094(18)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0024_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "accession to the European Union", "cotton", "farm price support", "guarantee threshold", "protocol to an agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4a2de43f-e8cf-4134-832e-47c29c487f00", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/37348818-9dac-4c04-a192-0a6ab538167f", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the prices, aids and percentages of aid to be retained in the olive oil sector for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "intervention price,olive oil,production aid,representative market price,target price,threshold price", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(17),comnat:COM_1992_0094(17)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0022_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["intervention price", "olive oil", "production aid", "representative market price", "target price", "threshold price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/37348818-9dac-4c04-a192-0a6ab538167f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1931b962-c61b-40d2-aae1-31a32c32aad3", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) no 569/76 laying down special measures for flax seed", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "marketing,norm price,seed flax", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(24),comnat:COM_1992_0094(24)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0031_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["marketing", "norm price", "seed flax"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1931b962-c61b-40d2-aae1-31a32c32aad3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9af01e2c-23ba-4804-8aec-dacd3668efbe", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation No 136/66/EEC on the establishment of a common organization of the market in oils and fats", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "agricultural policy,common organisation of markets,farm prices,olive oil,purchase price,representative price", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(16),comnat:COM_1992_0094(16)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0021_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural policy", "common organisation of markets", "farm prices", "olive oil", "purchase price", "representative price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9af01e2c-23ba-4804-8aec-dacd3668efbe", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b20e6224-c914-439b-96fc-0146371be115", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the prices applicable to cereals for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "farm prices,fixing of prices", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(02),comnat:COM_1992_0094(02)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0003_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["farm prices", "fixing of prices"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b20e6224-c914-439b-96fc-0146371be115", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1b4f471b-fbeb-4ee4-b880-6997834cbfae", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the production aid for certain cereals sown in the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "aid per hectare,alternative agricultural production,buckwheat,millet", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(07),comnat:COM_1992_0094(07)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0010_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["aid per hectare", "alternative agricultural production", "buckwheat", "millet"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1b4f471b-fbeb-4ee4-b880-6997834cbfae", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7d4404c8-511f-4445-b825-3abed774421c", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for the system of aid for cotton", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "Greece,aid system,cotton,farm price support", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(19),comnat:COM_1992_0094(19)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0026_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "aid system", "cotton", "farm price support"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7d4404c8-511f-4445-b825-3abed774421c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f3c3596d-522d-447e-97ca-694dc4b7d8e9", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the basic price and the seasonal adjustments to the basic price for sheepmeat for the 1993 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "basic price,sheepmeat", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(41),comnat:COM_1992_0094(41)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0051_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["basic price", "sheepmeat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f3c3596d-522d-447e-97ca-694dc4b7d8e9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fc325d9c-19ba-4af8-ab75-a9db252d0779", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 845/72 laying down special measures to encourage silkworm rearing", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "economic support,sericulture", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(29),comnat:COM_1992_0094(29)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0036_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["economic support", "sericulture"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fc325d9c-19ba-4af8-ab75-a9db252d0779", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/55fc191f-539e-454b-a3a5-25675768ea32", "title": "92/197/EEC: Commission Decision of 24 March 1992 derogating from the definition of the concept of originating products to take account of the special situation of the Netherlands' Antilles with regard to ladies' knitted pullovers falling within CN code 6110 20", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "Netherlands Antilles,clothing,originating product", "workIds": "celex:31992D0197,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0063_058", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Netherlands Antilles", "clothing", "originating product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/55fc191f-539e-454b-a3a5-25675768ea32", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9b5160b1-3eb5-48cf-a5f4-6c23905b5cc9", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulations (EEC) Nos 1035/72 and 1121/89 as regards the intervention thresholds mechanism for fresh fruit and vegetables", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "basic price,fruit,guarantee threshold,purchase price,vegetable", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(44),comnat:COM_1992_0094(44)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0061_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["basic price", "fruit", "guarantee threshold", "purchase price", "vegetable"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9b5160b1-3eb5-48cf-a5f4-6c23905b5cc9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b1be7dbe-ad98-4abc-b761-8e610bc9cd35", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the guide price for unginned cotton for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "EU production,cotton,norm price", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(21),comnat:COM_1992_0094(21)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0028_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU production", "cotton", "norm price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b1be7dbe-ad98-4abc-b761-8e610bc9cd35", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f8a00bfa-6263-4da5-ab92-b47e8ab68451", "title": "Roads to participation in the European Community : Increasing prospects of employee representatives in technological change.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Eurofound,European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "European Community,information,new technology,technological change", "workIds": "PUB_SY7291035", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Community", "information", "new technology", "technological change"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f8a00bfa-6263-4da5-ab92-b47e8ab68451", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c02d65ad-9180-4f72-95af-754d90b98207", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82 laying down special measures for peas, field beans and sweet lupins", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "guarantee threshold,leguminous vegetable,marketing year", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(31),comnat:COM_1992_0094(31)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0038_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["guarantee threshold", "leguminous vegetable", "marketing year"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c02d65ad-9180-4f72-95af-754d90b98207", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/14a96d95-f83f-4034-bd8c-402a8d5484e2", "title": "Amendment to the proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION ON THE ADOPTION OF AN ACTION PLAN FOR THE EXCHANGE OF NATIONAL OFFICIALS BETWEEN MEMBER STATE ADMINISTRATIONS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY LEGISLATION REQUIRED TO BUILD THE SINGLE MARKET", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_decision_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "European integration,action programme,allowances and expenses,civil servant,labour mobility,single market", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0113,comnat:COM_1992_0113_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_092_R_0010_02", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European integration", "action programme", "allowances and expenses", "civil servant", "labour mobility", "single market"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/14a96d95-f83f-4034-bd8c-402a8d5484e2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/628ef5c6-263f-45a8-9ac8-6c0b80ff4f58", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the basic price and defining the standard quality for pig carcases for the period 1 July 1992 to 30 June 1993", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "pigmeat,product quality", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(42),comnat:COM_1992_0094(42)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0053_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["pigmeat", "product quality"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/628ef5c6-263f-45a8-9ac8-6c0b80ff4f58", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f68eb05a-8962-4fb4-985f-e7a9de7e1bb1", "title": "92/198/EEC: Commission Decision of 24 March 1992 authorizing the United Kingdom to permit temporarily the marketing of black medick seed not satisfying the requirements of Council Directive 66/401/EEC", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "United Kingdom,marketing,seed", "workIds": "celex:31992D0198,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0064_059", "eurovoc_concepts": ["United Kingdom", "marketing", "seed"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f68eb05a-8962-4fb4-985f-e7a9de7e1bb1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b69c592c-0936-462d-86de-9cffa8efbeff", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the minimum price for potatoes to be paid by potato-starch manufacturers to potato producers for the 1992/93 cereal marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "potato,starch", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(11),comnat:COM_1992_0094(11)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0014_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["potato", "starch"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b69c592c-0936-462d-86de-9cffa8efbeff", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/70a1e5c9-bf4e-474e-89bd-1e081b8d61e1", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the guide prices for wine for the 1992/93 wine year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "guide price,wine", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(47),comnat:COM_1992_0094(47)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0067_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["guide price", "wine"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/70a1e5c9-bf4e-474e-89bd-1e081b8d61e1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3e5e2f12-d82e-4a10-88f1-523739466bd2", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the activating threshold price for aid, the guide price and the minimum price for peas, field beans and sweet lupins for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "farm prices,fixing of prices,leguminous vegetable,supplementary aid for products", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(32),comnat:COM_1992_0094(32)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0039_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["farm prices", "fixing of prices", "leguminous vegetable", "supplementary aid for products"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3e5e2f12-d82e-4a10-88f1-523739466bd2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/736d2da0-d31c-4feb-9b8e-03865573be5f", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the minimum price for unginned cotton for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "cotton,minimum price", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(22),comnat:COM_1992_0094(22)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0029_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["cotton", "minimum price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/736d2da0-d31c-4feb-9b8e-03865573be5f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\n9 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7dbbdf8d-9c92-499a-8287-27bc232bf2ee", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid in favour of small cotton producers", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "aid per hectare,cotton,smallholding", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(20),comnat:COM_1992_0094(20)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0027_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["aid per hectare", "cotton", "smallholding"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7dbbdf8d-9c92-499a-8287-27bc232bf2ee", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/251494fa-38b0-4c07-92a0-aba6cb4d2cb6", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 989/84 introducing a system of guarantee thresholds for certain processed fruit and vegetable products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "fruit vegetable,guarantee threshold,production aid,vegetable product", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(45),comnat:COM_1992_0094(45)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0063_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fruit vegetable", "guarantee threshold", "production aid", "vegetable product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/251494fa-38b0-4c07-92a0-aba6cb4d2cb6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9fd58166-6bcf-4974-8aac-ff6633302aa1", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing prices for rice for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "intervention price,rice,target price", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(12),comnat:COM_1992_0094(12)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0015_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["intervention price", "rice", "target price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9fd58166-6bcf-4974-8aac-ff6633302aa1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6521a41e-5523-4e3e-a28f-d1330b6ddee0", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 on the common organization of the market in wine", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "prices policy,production control,trade policy,viticulture", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(46),comnat:COM_1992_0094(46)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0065_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["prices policy", "production control", "trade policy", "viticulture"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6521a41e-5523-4e3e-a28f-d1330b6ddee0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f541fe71-d320-45cc-9a8a-cd5b329dde17", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the target price for milk and the intervention prices for butter, skimmed-milk powder and Grana padano and Parmigiano reggiano cheeses for the 1992/93 milk year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "hard cheese,intervention price,milk,skimmed milk powder,target price", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(36),comnat:COM_1992_0094(36)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0045_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["hard cheese", "intervention price", "milk", "skimmed milk powder", "target price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f541fe71-d320-45cc-9a8a-cd5b329dde17", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\n9 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/34e5abdd-34a5-4c22-b35d-34a5927913a8", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the monthly price increases for cereals, wheat and rye flour and wheat groats and meal for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "cereals,farm prices,fixing of prices", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(06),comnat:COM_1992_0094(06)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0008_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["cereals", "farm prices", "fixing of prices"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/34e5abdd-34a5-4c22-b35d-34a5927913a8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8063d10c-498d-4fa4-87bd-911be0d12975", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1008/86 laying down detailed rules for production refunds applicable to potato starch", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "potato,production refund,starch", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(10),comnat:COM_1992_0094(10)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0013_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["potato", "production refund", "starch"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8063d10c-498d-4fa4-87bd-911be0d12975", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d00bee54-2951-4ba0-beee-aad18ee16cfc", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1079/77 as regards the co-responsibility levy on milk and milk products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "milk,milk product,producer co-responsibility", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(37),comnat:COM_1992_0094(37)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0047_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["milk", "milk product", "producer co-responsibility"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d00bee54-2951-4ba0-beee-aad18ee16cfc", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/82d2217b-a4fd-48aa-961d-736f98fc851d", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the guide price and the intervention price for adult bovine animals for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "guide price,intervention price", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(40),comnat:COM_1992_0094(40)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0050_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["guide price", "intervention price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/82d2217b-a4fd-48aa-961d-736f98fc851d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\n9 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c24f352f-975d-47d3-82a6-b17b11e61d8c", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing certain prices and other amounts applicable in the fruit and vegetables sector for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "fruit,purchase price,vegetable", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(43),comnat:COM_1992_0094(43)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0054_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fruit", "purchase price", "vegetable"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c24f352f-975d-47d3-82a6-b17b11e61d8c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/19237d40-bab8-4d3e-a339-3769b91966fe", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 358/79 as regards sparkling wines produced in the Community as defined in point 15 of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and Regulation (EEC) No 4252/88 on the preparation and marketing of liqueur wines produced in the Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "fortified wine,marketing standard,quality standard,wine of superior quality", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(49),comnat:COM_1992_0094(49)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0069_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fortified wine", "marketing standard", "quality standard", "wine of superior quality"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/19237d40-bab8-4d3e-a339-3769b91966fe", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/32e4797c-1f0e-44a2-8da2-708f531f1267", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the aid for fibre flax and hemp and the amounts withheld to finance measures to promote the use of flax fibre for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "financing of aid,flax,hemp", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(25),comnat:COM_1992_0094(25)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0032_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["financing of aid", "flax", "hemp"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/32e4797c-1f0e-44a2-8da2-708f531f1267", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2f1740cd-a682-4f22-b181-6b4bcf63a5f4", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the aid for durum wheat for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "durum wheat,intervention price", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(04),comnat:COM_1992_0094(04)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0006_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["durum wheat", "intervention price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2f1740cd-a682-4f22-b181-6b4bcf63a5f4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3aa5cf8c-60ce-481e-8249-25cf23c382e5", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 on the common organization of the market in flax and hemp", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "common organisation of markets,flax,hemp", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(23),comnat:COM_1992_0094(23)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0030_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["common organisation of markets", "flax", "hemp"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3aa5cf8c-60ce-481e-8249-25cf23c382e5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/421a1b63-c9dc-41ae-b3cb-52f5ac4d80e4", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 3698/88 laying down special measures for hemp seed", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "hemp,production aid", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(27),comnat:COM_1992_0094(27)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0034_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["hemp", "production aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/421a1b63-c9dc-41ae-b3cb-52f5ac4d80e4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/25f2c437-78ea-4ce0-9a76-e9495ab4f2b2", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the guide price for dried fodder for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "fodder,norm price,production aid", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(35),comnat:COM_1992_0094(35)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0044_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fodder", "norm price", "production aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/25f2c437-78ea-4ce0-9a76-e9495ab4f2b2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n6 \n\n9 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/542de6b1-26c1-421b-ac15-9327d28c571b", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION CONCERNING THE CONCLUSION, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, OF THE CONVENTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN A TRANSBOUNDARY CONTEXT", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_other,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "countryside conservation,degradation of the environment,ecology,environmental impact,environmental policy,environmental protection,heritage protection,impact study,international convention,transfrontier pollution", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0093,comnat:COM_1992_0093_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_104_R_0005_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["countryside conservation", "degradation of the environment", "ecology", "environmental impact", "environmental policy", "environmental protection", "heritage protection", "impact study", "international convention", "transfrontier pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/542de6b1-26c1-421b-ac15-9327d28c571b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f5b38cfc-d972-40de-b8de-297c9abe8021", "title": "Amended proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE AMENDING DIRECTIVE 70/156/EEC ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO THE TYPE-APPROVAL OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND THEIR TRAILERS", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "approximation of laws,commercial vehicle,marketing standard,motor vehicle,technical standard,vehicle registration", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0120,comnat:COM_1992_0120_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_092_R_0010_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "commercial vehicle", "marketing standard", "motor vehicle", "technical standard", "vehicle registration"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f5b38cfc-d972-40de-b8de-297c9abe8021", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 120 final \n\n\u2022* \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nAmended proposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL PIRECTIVE \n\nAMENDING DIRECTIVE 70/156/EEC \n\nON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES \n\nRELATING TO THE TYPE-APPROVAL OF MOTOR VEHICLES \n\nAND THEIR TRAILERS \n\n(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 149(3) \nof the EEC-Treaty) \n\nW ta \n\nUS \n\nwmm \n\n\f- 1 _ \n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nA. On 2 August 1991, the Commission sent to the Council a proposal for a \n\nDirective amending Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws \n\nof the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and \n\ntheir trailers. On 29 January 1992, the Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion \n\nwhich supports the Commission in the principle and the objectives of the \n\nproposed Directive subject to comments on some practical difficulties. On 12 February 1992, the European Parliament approved the proposal in the \n\nfirst reading, subject to an amendment containing three different \n\nrequests. As far as the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee is concerned, \n\nthe Commission accepts one of the major suggestions relating to the \n\ntransitional provisions of the Directive. As far as the opinion of the \n\nEuropean Parliament is concerned the Commission accepts two of the three \n\nrequests contained in the proposed amendment. B. The Commission therefore proposes to amend its proposal as follows: \n\n1. The Commission shares the concern of the Economic and Social \n\nCommittee that the provisions of Article 2 (4) as presently drafted \n\nwould impose a heavy workload on industry and the national \n\nadministrations at the end of 1997. At this date, all existing \n\nnational type-approvals to vehicles, components and separate \n\ntechnical units actually cease to be valid. If the manufacturers wish \n\nto continue to put those vehicles, components and separate technical \n\nunits on the market within the EEC, they would then have to undergo \n\nthe complete EEC type-approval procedure laid down by the present \n\nDirective. The commission accepts the proposal of the Economic and \n\nSocial Committee that approvals granted to separate Directives on \n\nwhich such national type-approvals are based remain valid after 19 97 \n\nuntil either the standards of the concerned Directive change or main \n\nfeatures of the type of vehicle, component or technical unit are \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nmodified. Thus, such approvals could be carried over from the \n\nexisting national into a new EEC type-approval by an administrative \n\nact not requiring fresh tests. A corresponding complement to the existing wording of Article 2 (4) \n\nis proposed. The Commission agrees with the European Parliament that it would be \n\nuseful to establish, after two years of experience with the EEC type-\n\napproval system, a report on the operation of the system and the \n\neffects of total harmonisation. On the basis of such a report \n\npractical adaptations could be made to the system, if necessary, \n\nbefore it enters in the actual mandatory phase on 1 January 1996. Furthermore, the Commission deems it useful to consolidate, for this \n\ndate, the \"framework directive\" establishing the EEC type-approval \n\nprocedure and all the separate Directives which are part of this \n\nprocedure. Such a consolidation would contribute to the transparency \n\nof the EEC procedures and would thus be beneficial to industry and to \n\nnational administrations which have to apply these procedures. For institutional reasons, the Commission cannot accept the \n\ncommitment suggested by the European Parliament to examine whether, \n\nat this stage, it would be appropriate to transform the present \n\nDirective into a Regulation. It is proposed to include the above mentioned accepted amendments \n\ninto the Directive in the form of a new Article 3. - 3 -\n\nAmendment \n\nproposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DIRECTIVE \n\nAMENDING DIRECTIVE 70/156/EEC \n\nON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES \n\nRELATING TO THE TYPE-APPROVAL OF MOTOR VEHICLES \n\nAND THEIR TRAILERS \n\n1. Article 2, paragraph 4 \n\nThe following sentence is added: \n\n\"Approvals granted according to separate Directives which are part of the \n\nnational type-approval mentioned above shall remain valid after 31 \n\nDecember 1997 unless one of the conditions of Article 5 (3), second \n\nindent, apply. \" \n\n2. After Article 2, the following new Article 3 is added: \n\n1. The Commission shall report, on the basis of relevant informations to \n\nbe made available by the approval authorities of the Member States by \n\n31 December 1994, on the operation of the system and the effects of \n\nthe total harmonisation. 2. The Commission shall by 31 December 1995 submit to the Council a \n\nproposal for the consolidation of the Directives enumerated in \n\nAnnex IV. 3. The existing Article 3 becomes Article 4 \n\n\f* \n\nISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 120 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n06 07 \n\nCatalogue number : CB-CO-92-132-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42387-0 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nLr2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/76039d74-963f-4993-8a25-aef7b4c8a90a", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing certain sugar prices and the standard quality of best for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "intervention price,sugar beet,target price,white sugar", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(14),comnat:COM_1992_0094(14)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0017_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["intervention price", "sugar beet", "target price", "white sugar"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/76039d74-963f-4993-8a25-aef7b4c8a90a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n8 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b752ab55-a9ac-4847-8971-b087f79e1c4e", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, the threshold prices, the amount of compensation for storage costs and the prices to be applied in Spain and Portugal for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "fixing of prices,storage cost,sugar,sugar beet", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(15),comnat:COM_1992_0094(15)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0018_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fixing of prices", "storage cost", "sugar", "sugar beet"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b752ab55-a9ac-4847-8971-b087f79e1c4e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n3 \n\n2 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n5 \n\n4 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n11 \n\n10 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4226a9c8-1db3-4b80-beb4-cce30819aa10", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No amending Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 introducing a specific measure for certain grain legumes", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "leguminous vegetable,production aid", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0094(34),comnat:COM_1992_0094(34)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_119_R_0043_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["leguminous vegetable", "production aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4226a9c8-1db3-4b80-beb4-cce30819aa10", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 94 final - VOL. I \n\nBrussels, 24 March 1992 \n\nCOMMISSION PROPOSALS \n\non the prices for agricultural products \nand on related measures (1992/93) \n\nVOLUME \n\nExplanatory Memoranda \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nThe Commission submits herewith its proposals for the agricultural prices for \n1992/93 and for certain related measures. The text is in three parts : \n\nVolume I : Explanatory memoranda \nVolume II : Financial implications \nVolume III : Legal Instruments \n\nContents of Volume I \n\nIntroduct ion \n\nA. General considerations \n\nI. General economic situation \n\nII. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\nM l. Outlook for the agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n(b) World markets \n\nIV. Price proposals and related measures for 1992/93 \n\nmarket I ng year \n\nV. Agr i-monetary measures. *. Vi. Financial implications \n\nB. Explanatory memoranda, by product \n\n1. Cereals \n2. Rice \n3. Sugar \n4. Olive oil \n5. Oil seeds and prote i n crops \n6. Text! le fibres \n7. Wine \n8. Fruit and vegetables \n9. Tobacco \n\n10. Milk sector \n11. Beef/Veal \n12. Sheepmeat and goatmeat \n13. P igmeat \n\nPage \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\n5 \n\n8 \n8 \n10 \n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 \n19 \n20 \n25 \n\n28 \n\n29 \n33 \n34 \n35 \n36 \n37 \n38 \n39 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nC. Annexes \n\nAnnex 1: Report on the operation of the system of aid \n\nfor cot ton \n\nAnnex 2: Commission report to the Council on the \n\nsituation with regard to the production and \nmarketing of certain varieties of tobacco \n\nD. Tables \n\n1. Price proposals in ecus for the various agricultural \n\nproducts \n\n2. Argr(monetary proposals 1992/93 \n3. Effect of Commission proposals on support \n\nprices for agricultural products expressed in \necus and in national currency \n\n4. Stabilizers and production thresholds \n5. Trends in economic indices from 1980 \n\nto 1990 in real terms \n\nE. Figures \n\nFig. 1: Net value added per person employed in \n\nagriculture \n\nPaoe \n\n40 \n\n53 \n\n58 \n63 \n\n64 \n65 \n\n68 \n\n69 \n\n\fintroduction \n\n- 4 -\n\nIn November 1991 the Commission presented detailed proposals to the Council \nand to Parliament for the reform of several market sectors (arable crops, \nmilk, beef, sheepmeat and tobacco). These proposals have been the subject of \nlengthy discussions in the Council and In Parliament and the Commission must \ninsist that decisions be taken In these matters without further delay. In \norder to facilitate this process - which is essential to enable the Community \nto come to terms with existing market imbalances and prevent rapid increases \nin budgetary costs - the Commission is putting forward a set of price \nproposals which represent In essence the maintenance of the existing rules. Thus, except in a few cases where changes have already been decided In \nprinciple or are provided for in existing legislation, the Commission Is \nputting forward a set of price proposals which for the 1992/93 marketing year \nwill maintain In place the present stabilisers, prices and producer levies. The proposals on the dismantlement of MCAs are designed to facilitate the \nCommunity's single market objective to remove controls at frontiers by \n1 January 1993. A. General considerations \n\n- 5 -\n\nI- \n\nGeneral economic situation \n\n1. As in the rest of the world, economic growth in the Community slowed \nsignificantly in 1991. On average, economic activity Is estimated to \nincrease by only 1. 3X in real terms in 1991, against 2. 8X In 1990. A \nmoderate recovery to 2. 2X is expected In 1992, accelerating to 2. 4X In \n1993. Employment growth slowed sharply to 0. 5X In 1991 and appears likely to \nreach a standstill in 1992. As a result, given the strong growth in the \nsize of the labour force, the rate of unemployment Is forecast to \nincrease steadily over the period 1991-93, reaching 9. 2X In 1993, \ncompared to 8. 4% in 1990. For the Community as a whole, inflation (implicit deflator of GDP) is \nforecast to fall from 5. 7X in 1990 to 5. 5X in 1991. During 1992 and 1993 \ninflationary pressure is expected to moderate, leading to further falls \nto 4. 6X and 4. 4X respectively. Nevertheless inflation rates differ \nwidely within the Community, with certain Member States (namely Greece \nand Portugal) still experiencing double digit inflation and others \n(Denmark, Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland and Luxembourg) with a \nrate of inflation below 4X in 1992. 11. The agricultural economy in 1991 \n\n2. After the sharp improvement experienced in 1989, 1991 was the second \nconsecutive year in which the agricultural situation in the Community \nwas seriously affected by the deterioration of markets and a sharp \nrebuilding of stocks. As regards weather conditions, productivity and \nlevel of output, the 1991 agricultural year, while not exceptional, may \nbe counted among the good years for Community agriculture. Nevertheless, \ndifficulties experienced in some markets hindered the achievement of \nsatisfactory results In terms of farm incomes. This proves once again \nthat restoring a durable equilibrium in agricultural markets is a \ncrucial condition not only in the positive development of incomes but \nalso if aggravation of the present crisis of Community agriculture is to \nbe avoided. 3. Due to more favourable weather and the consequent increase in yields, \ncrop production in 1991 was in general higher than in the previous year. Cereal production increased by almost 6X relative to 1990, leading to \naround 181 million t In 1991. The highest production increases were for \ndurum wheat and grain maize, rising by 43X and 15X respectively from \n1990 levels. Soft wheat production exceeded 81 million t (4X more than \nin 1990). - 6 -\n\nGiven the increase in cereal production and a slight decrease in \nconsumption, especially for animal feed, the market imbalance already \nexisting in this sector is expected to increase steadily during the \ncurrent marketing year. Taking into account the carryover of stocks at \nthe beginning of the 1991/92 marketing year one could estimate that the \nsurplus of available supplies over total Internal use of cereals will \napproach 80 million t In 1991/92 compared to 66 million t In 1990/91. As \nthe possibilities of export on the world market are relatively limited \nthe 1991/92 marketing year will end with a sharp Increase of about \n10 million t In cereals stocks which will continue to depress the \nmarket. The situation worsened, in particular, for durum wheat (for \nwhich self-sufficiency now exceeds 200X), for common wheat and for \nbarley. A fall In sugarbeet area and yields has led to lower sugar production \nthan the previous year, but it Is still well above Internal consumption. Sunflower seed production was relatively stable at around 4. 0 million t. Soya production fell by 0. 5 million t. Largely as a result of record \nyields in France, production of rapeseed, excluding production In the \nnew LSnder, reached a record of 6. 4 million t and in the new LMnder \nrapeseed production rose to 1 million t. As a result of the spring frost, fruit production dropped by almost 20X. For the same reason, wine production is expected to decrease by more \nthan 10X on average, reflecting particularly the drop In production in \nFrance. In the animal products sectors, milk production is expected to fall, due \nin particular to a 2X cut In milk quota decided in the context of the \nlast price package. Although the drop in milk quotas during the last few \nyears has reduced the imbalance between production and consumption, and \nspecial measures have been taken to encourage domestic consumption, the \nmilk balance expressed in milk equivalent still has a surplus of about \n15 million t. Without special measures this figure would be 7 - 8 \nmillion t higher. Beef production continued to increase in 1991 by 4 to \n5X and probably reached 8. 6 million t, in line with the beef cycle which \nis now reaching its peak level. Beef consumption, on the other hand, has \ndropped steadily during the last few years and it is now estimated at \n7. 5 million t, almost 1 million t under the level of production. Production In most sectors exceeded the levels at wrTlch action under the \nvarious stabilizer mechanisms is triggered. The cereals MGQ was \nexceeded by more than 3X which will lead to a price cut of 3X in \n1992/93. Excesses were also recorded for wine, certain varieties of \ntobacco, cotton, nectarines, peaches, milk and pigmeat. In the oilseed \nand proteins sectors, full Institutional prices were reduced as a result \nof the application of their MGQs systems, by 21X (rapeseed), 32X \n(sunflowerseed), 20X (soya beans) and 17X (peas and beans). 7 -\n\n5. Another sign of the increasing market Imbalances for most products is \nthe continued growth in public stocks In the major sectors, after the \nsharp reduction in the late 1980s and In the first half of 1990. By the end of December 1991, cereal stocks exceeded 16 million t, \ncompared to 12. 8 million t twelve months before. In particular, stocks \ndoubled for rye and durum wheat. For the first time In 1991 stocks of \nrice were also very high (more than 200 000 t on average). Stocks of \nbutter and sklmmed-mllk powder which had practically disappeared by the \nbeginning of 1990 Increased sharply during the 1990/91 marketing year \nand reached a peak exceeding 400 000 t and 500 000 t respectively in \nJuly 1991. By December 1991 stocks of both products had fallen again (to \n260 and 434 thousand t) as a result of a large export programme. Beef \nstocks, on the other hand, are continuing to Increase. and now approach \none million t in spite of the extremely favourable pattern of exports In \n1991 (almost 1. 1 million t ). Only stocks of alcohol decreased sharply, \ndue to a major sales programme and to the drop In production resulting \nfrom the bad weather over the last three marketing years. The dramatic \nIncrease in intervention stocks since the second half of 1990 shows that \nwe have again entered an era of oversupply, after a certain improvement \nin 1988 and in 1989, depressing the market situation and consequently \naffecting producer prices and farm Incomes. 6. For the Community as a whole, producer prices are expected to rise in \nnominal terms by 2. 7X relative to 1990. This means a fall of 3. 5X In \nreal terms on average. The drop in real output prices in 1991 is a \nresult of falls of 0. 6X and 7. 7X in prices of crop products and animal \nproducts respectively. Sharp falls in real prices are expected for wine \n(-8. 2%), milk (-6. 6X), pigs (-6. 7X), cattle (-10. OX) and sheep (-13. 1%). Real prices of fruit, on the other hand, are forecast to rise by 10. 1% \nfollowing a poor harvest due to adverse weather conditions. Cereal \nprices are relatively stable (-0. 6X) in real terms. Nominal input prices, on the other hand, are expected to rise by 4. OX, \nwhich means a drop of 1. 5X in real terms (- 0. 9X for fertilizers, + 3. 8X \nfor energy and - 3. 5X for animal feedingstuffs). As purchases of goods \nand services account for only 45X of agricultural output, the fall In \ninput price was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of the \ndeterioration of producer prices on farm incomes. 7. According to the first estimates made by the Commission in mid-December \n1991, on the basis of data supplied by the Member States, average farm \nincomes for the Community are expected to have fallen in real terms in \n1991 for the second year running, after a sharp increase in 1989. For \nthe Community as a whole, farm income fell by 4. 8X in real terms If \nagricultural incomes are measured by the net value added at factor cost \nper work unit, and by 9. 8X in real terms, If measured by the net Income \nper work unit of the farmer and his family, i. e. after deduction of \nwages, rents and interests. Graph 1, in the Annex, shows the trend in \nreal terms of agricultural income by Member State since 1980, as \nmeasured by net value added at factor cost per annual work unit. In general, farm incomes declined for almost every type of farming, and \nespecially for cereals, oilseeds, dairy, beef and pork. III- Outlook for thu agricultural markets \n\n(a) Community markets \n\n- 8 -\n\n8. As in previous years, the Commission has carried out an analysis of the \nmedium-term prospects (1997/98 marketing year) for the main agricultural \nmarkets. These forecasts take into account the impact on production of \nthe changes In agricultural policies adopted In recent years (I. e. \u2022 \nquotas, stabilisers, set-aside, etc. ) and are based on the assumption \nthat current policies will continue unchanged. In addition, they Include \nthe Impact of German unification. So, they could be viewed as a \nreference scenario for the future of agricultural markets In the \nCommunity in the absence of CAP reform, and assuming the continuation of \npresent polIcy. The main conclusion which can be drawn from this analysis Is that, \ndespite several reforms adopted during the second half of the 80's to \nImprove the balance between supply and demand In agriculture, the \ndepressed Community market situation will continue and even worsen in \nthe medium term If more effective measures are not taken. 9. Medium term forecasts for cereals show that, in spite of the price \n\nreductions due to stabilisers and a reduction In area, In particular as \na consequence of the current set-aside schemes, production should \ncontinue to increase although at a lower rate than in the past. Total \ncereal production Is forecast to reach around 189 million t by 1997, \nthat is almost 10 million t more than the 1991 crop. As far as cereal consumption Is concerned, In spite of a slight increase \nin industrial use and possibly in human consumption, total internal use \nis expected to continue falling as a consequence of the decline in \nanimal feed use (a drop of about 5 million t by 1997/98, which means a \ndrop of 0. 7 million t a year on average). Total Internal use should \namount to about 140 million t in 1997/98, which would leave some 50 \nmillion t to be exported. 10. Medium term forecasts for oilseeds have been made on the basis of the \n\nprice and MGQ system which applied in the period 1988/89 to 1991/92. These show that the reinforced MGQ system which was Introduced in 1988 \nand which has held production to lower levels than would otherwise have \nbeen the case, would not, had It continued, have prevented a further, \nbut more moderate, rise in production in the medium term. The full \nimpact of the reform agreed in December 1991 cannot yet be assessed but \nit seems likely to lead to less intensive production and hence to lower \nproduction totals than the record levels observed in recent years. 11. The medium term outlook for sugar will be Influenced by any changes \n\nwhich could be introduced in the quota system and by the prospects for \nworld market prices. Assuming a no-change situation in these two areas, \nthe production forecast for 1997 is 15. 8 million t while consumption \ncould reach 11. 9 million t. Taking account of preferential and other \nimports the total exportable surplus would amount to 5. 4 million t of \nwhich 2. 2 million t would be C sugar. - 9 -\n\n12. Due to agronomic and climatic factors olive oil production fluctuates \n\nconsiderably from one year to the next. Total area should Increase \nslightly In the future due to the expansion In Spain and Portugal \nfollowing Integration Into the Community regime. This, added to a small \nyield increase, should lead to production of about 1. 5 million t In \n1997. On the other hand, overall consumption Is expected to Increase a \nlittle to 1. 4 million t in 1997, giving a small surplus of production. 13. Despite the Community's efforts to diminish the European wine potential \nby means of grubbing up schemes, wine production In the Community \naccounts for some 190 million hi in a normal year (of which about 30X Is \nquality wine), but since 1988 wine production has fluctuated between 160 \nand 180 million hi essentially for climatic reasons. The trend observed \nsince 1977 suggests a slight increase in yield, compensated for by a \ndecrease in the surface cultivated. As a result, production might fall \nto an expected level of 170 million hi in 1997. Wine consumption has \nbeen steadily falling since 1975 and this trend will probably continue \nover the next decade. If so, global human consumption would be around \n106 million hi in 1997/98, compared to 123 million hi In 1989/90. To \nthis quantity about 12 million hi can be added for Industrial use. With \nconsumption falling dramatically, particularly In the producer \ncountries, the imbalance which already exists especially in the table \nwine sector is expected to increase steadily over the coming years and \nextend to some quality wines. 14. In the absence of the reform proposed by the Commission, tobacco \n\nproduction should continue to Increase, In spite of the stabilizer \nmechanism, and reach 550 000 t In 1997/98. The excessive development In \nproduction of certain varieties already observed in the past could cause \nthe most concern especially in terms of market imbalance and budget \ncost. The global reform of this market organisation proposed by the \nCommission should reduce such problems, maintaining total production \nwithin the bounds of the proposed quota (340 000 t ). 15. Milk deliveries, as recorded in official statistics, are, In general, \n\nvery close to the quota level. In the absence of any further reduction \nof quota and assuming that difficulties in the application of quotas in \ncertain regions are overcome, one could assume that milk production will \nbe close to the total quota level (97. 6 million t excluding the five new \nLander). As milk yield per cow Is expected to increase by 1. 5X p. a. , the \ndairy herd which now stands at 22. 2 million head has to be reduced by at \nleast 2 million by 1998 in order to keep deliveries within the quota \nIimits. Assuming that special measures to promote internal consumption are \nretained, the long term trend within the Community Is for the total \nconsumption of dairy products to remain relatively stable at \n87. 5 million t (without the five new Lander). However, whilst there is \nincreasing demand for fresh dairy products, soft cheeses and butter \nsubstitutes with some dairy content, the consumption of full-fat milk, \nhard cheeses and butter is declining. This, coupled with the ever-\nincreasing fat content of milk produced (due to better animal husbandry \nand diet), poses major problems as the Imbalance between production and \nconsumption continues to grow. It must also be remembered that without \nspecial measures normal consumption of milk would be about 8 million t \nbelow actual domestic use. - 10 -\n\n16. Beef production Is expected to reach about 8. 3 million t by 1998. Beef \nconsumption has been stead Iy declining for several years resulting not \nonly from specific reasons leading to temporary drops in demand, but \nprobably also from a more structural change in consumer preferences. Total beef consumption dropped by almost 700 000 t between 1987 and 1990 \nfalling to a level which Is now well below the trend. In these \ncircumstances, only If the market Image of beef is restored could one \nexpect that the long term trend could continue, leading to global \nconsumption of 7. 7 million t In 1998. If this goal is not achieved, beef \nconsumption will probably continue to fall to a level of about \n7. 0 million t In 1998. In any case. In the absence of effective measures \nto control production and to promote demand, present market Imbalances \nwill continue and probably worsen In the coming years. 17. Sheepmeat production has sharply Increased in recent years as a result \nof the expansion of the Community flock. Without any change in the \npresent legislation, we can expect production to exceed 1. 25 million t \nin 1998. The expectation for sheepmeat consumption is of a slight \nIncrease. Total consumption should be around 1. 5 million t in 1998. The consumption of pigmeat and poultrymeat is Increasing steadily and, \ngiven the ease with which production can respond to demand, a production \nforecast of 15. 6 million t of pigmeat and 7. 4 million t of poultrymeat \nfor 1998 can be made. This allows for exports of 0. 4 million t and \n0. 26 million t for pigmeat and poultrymeat respectively with both \nsectors otherwise in balance. (b) World markets \n\n18. In spite of a relative improvement In the second half of 1991, the \n\nsituation and prospects of agricultural world markets at the beginning \nof 1992 are always heavily affected by the structural disequilibrium \nwhich exists for most products and by the Increasing difficulties of \nfinancing imports. Many countries are currently in a period of economic \nuncertainty. In particular, the extent of the agricultural problems and \nimport requirements of the former Soviet Union remains largely unknown \nfor the short as well as for the medium and long term. Nevertheless, it \nis clear that quantities delivered will depend largely on the \nwillingness of exporting countries to grant credits or provide aid. At \nthe same time, because of the lack of hard currency, some important \nmarkets in North Africa and Eastern Europe appear less reliable \ncustomers for western exports. In the latter case It must also be \nstressed that some, which were traditionally net importers, are likely \nto become net exporters of agricultural products in the medium term, as \na consequence of efforts to promote greater market orientation for their \neconomies. In any case, the Community has a primary responsibility to \nsupport their economies and to facilitate their integration in a wider \nEuropean free trade area. - 11 -\n\n19. World cereal production Is forecast to fall by 6% compared to 1990, \n\nwhile still remaining the second-highest harvest on record. Wheat Is \nforecast at 547 million t, down almost 9%, and coarse grains at 795 \nmillion t, down 4%. Although still declining In absolute terms, \nconsumption Is set once again to exceed production In 1991/92. Prices \nremain firm for the moment due to the cut in production, relatively low \nstock levels and increased exports. The upwards tendency Is, however, \nbeing limited by large harvests In the EC and Canada and by uncertainty \nover the ability of some major importers to pay for Imports and to \nreimburse credits. In addition the present situation risks changing \nradically during the second half of the year as a consequence of the \nincrease in production forecast in the USA. Assuming no change In policies, net export aval IIblI Ities in the OECD \narea are projected to Increase substantially over the period to 1996 to \nreach 163. 3 million t, or 25X of production. When set against the likely \ncommercial Import requirements these forecasts suggest the possibility \nof depressed cereal prices and continuing trade tension. World oilseed production for 1991/92 Is forecast at a record 222 \nmillion t while consumption will reach about 220 million t. In the OECD \narea stocks are expected to increase by 1% while prices remain stable. Both world sugar production and consumption will increase in 1991/92 but \nat a reduced rate of annual growth. The marketing year will end roughly \nin balance or with a slight surplus. In the absence of trade reform it \nappears likely that In the medium term the market is set to continue its \npresent cyclical pattern. World stocks should grow slowly while prices \nare expected to remain low. 20. While OECD milk output has fallen marginally, and Is forecast at 220 \nmillion t, consumption has increased slightly above the rate of \npopulation growth. Stocks have risen as a result of reduced imports by \nthe USSR and the Gulf region, and a fall in butter consumption. Between \n1991 and 1996 OECD production is expected to increase by 2. 5X while \nmilkfat consumption should increase at a higher rate. In spite of this, \nexport availabilities should exceed 1. 1 million t in 1996, corresponding \nto a self-sufficiency ratio of 115%. In addition, as a large percentage \nof OECD dairy exports are to the former USSR, economic reform In the \nRepublics and their financial problems could have a iriajor impact on \nfuture dairy exports. Beef production increased in 1991 in OECD countries, while demand \nweakened as a result of poor economic growth and changing dietary \nhabits. Consequently, stocks have increased and prices have fallen. In \nthe medium-term, production is set to continue to grow at a higher rate \nthan demand. As a consequence, export aval IibiI ities in OECD countries \nare expected to increase from under 1 million t to 1. 3 million t in \n1996. IV. Price proposals and related measures \n\n- 12 -\n\n21. As is clear from the analysis of the current and prospective market \n\nsituation, the Community Is facing a progressive deterioration of market \nbalances. The precise budgetary effect of this deterioration will vary \nfrom time to time depending on conjuncture I market conditions. This \nyear the conjunctural situation is somewhat better than last year, In \nparticular because. of higher world market prices for cereals and some \nimprovement In the world and, more particularly, the domestic market \nsituation for dairy products. But these short term developments do not \nin any way remove this need to tackle the underlying tendency to greater \nmarket imbalance in the medium and long term. The Commission has \npresented the Council with a series of proposals for reform designed to \nconfront these problems as they effect most of the major market sectors \nof the CAP and will make proposals for other sectors when this reform \npackage has been accepted. 22. The reform proposals change fundamentally the market organisations in \n\nseveral sectors, taking into account the need to ensure the \ncompetitivity of Community agriculture. Improve the distribution of \nagricultural support among farmers and reinforce measures to safeguard \nthe environment. The aim of these measures is not Just to reduce \nagricultural expenses or to adapt in advance our policy to any \ninternational commitment which could be taken in the context of GATT \nnegotiations, but essentially to have more effective instruments for \nbringing the markets into balance whilst safeguarding farm incomes and \nthe rural economy. These proposals have been widely examined and \ndiscussed by the Council and the Parliament during the last few months. 23. Formal conclusions have not yet been reached on these proposals but the \nneed for fundamental reform is not in question. Indeed, in the absence \nof fundamental reform the Commission would be compelled to propose \ndrastic changes in prices and support mechanisms. Such measures would \nbring the market back into balance but at a heavy cost in terms of \nproducer incomes. 24. In order, however, to allow the Council to concentrate its attention on \n\nthe reform, the attached proposals provide essentially for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the prices and stabiliser mechanisms as they \nexisted in 1991/92. v \n\n25. It should be emphasised, however, that some parts of the proposals \n\ncontained In the reform proposals cannot be delayed and early Council \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals Is presupposed in this \npackage. For example. In the milk sector, the proposal is for unchanged \nprices. This proposal can only be maintained if, before 1st April, when \nthe existing milk quota system expires, the Council has taken decisions \nto extend the quota system as proposed In the reform package. It would \nbe quite impractical to support unlimited production at current price \nlevels. Similarly, for cereals, the current proposal assume acceptance \nof the proposal In which has been Included in the reform package for the \ncontinuance into 1992/93 of the existing maximum guaranteed quantity and \nbasic and supplementary levy systems. In the prices package it is \nproposed to set the basic levy at 5X, the same level as In 1991/92. A \nproposal is also made that, as in 1991/92, farmers who Join a one year \nset-aside scheme will be exempted from the levy. This proposal is \nincluded as a safeguard in case decisions on the reform are not taken in \ntime (before 1 June 1992) for the set-aside scheme proposed in the new \narable products scheme to apply to the 1992/93 plantings. If early \ndecisions are taken on the reform, this proposal will lapse. - 13 -\n\n26. In other sectors prices, mechanisms and, where appropriate, stabiliser \nfigures are carried forward from 1991/92 Into 1992/93 except where \nchanges are due to come Into effect on the basis of existing \nlegislation, adaptations are due to fulfil undertakings given In the \ncourse of last year, or it Is necessary to take Interim measures to \nbridge the gap between reform and the existing regime. Hence, in the \nolive oil sector there is a transfer of aid between the consumption aid \nand production aid, as promised last October when the consumption aid \nwas last decided and, for cotton, a change Is proposed to make price \nlevels somewhat more predictable without weakening the effectiveness of \nthe stabiliser. For tobacco, the interim measures needed because of the \ndelay in adopting the reformed regime have been proposed In advance of \nthis package and what Is proposed now Is that prices and premiums should \nremain unchanged. Action Is, however, proposed to mitigate a perverse \neffect of the existing tobacco regime which can In some cases make low \ngrade tobacco more attractive to the processor than high grade tobacco. 27. This roll forward package is designed to allow the Council to take rapid \n\ndecisions and to avoid distracting its attention from the reform of the \nCAP. It should not, however, be misunderstood as suggesting that, in the \nabsence of reform, the existing CAP could be rolled forward \nindefinitely. On the contrary, as explained above, were the reform \nproposals to be rejected, very drastic price measures would be \nnecessary. V. Agri-monetary measures \n\n28. Agri-monetary proposals are based on the situation of currencies at the \n\nbeginning of February 1992. As regards the currencies which are maintained within a mutual margin of \nfluctuation of 2. 25X there is no longer a monetary gap - the \nagricultural conversion rates are already at the level of the central \nrates. As regards the other currencies (the drachma, peseta, escudo and pound \nsterling) the monetary gaps vary with trends on the exchange rate \nmarket, but it was agreed in July 1988 that they should be dismantled \nbefore 1 January 1993. With regards to Greece, the arrangements for the \nautomatic dismantling of the gaps created by monetary realignments \nprovide for a final stage, for the majority of products, which will take \neffect at the beginning of the 1992/93 marketing year. In order to limit any further dismantling which may be needed on \n31 December 1992 it Is proposed to reduce all the monetary gaps existing \nat the time of the Council decision to 1. 5 points, at which level the \ncompensatory amount no longer applies. VI. Financial Implications \n\n- 14 -\n\n29. The financial Implications of the proposals for prices and related \n\nmeasures for EAGGF Guidance Section expenditure and for the Community's \nown resources of agricultural origin are set out In Volume II. 30. It is estimated that the financial Implications of these proposals for \nprices and related measures will be of ECU 6 million In 1992 and of \nECU 45 ml 11 Ion In 1993. - la -\n\nB. Explanatory memoranda by product \n\n1. CEREALS \n\n1. 1. Prices \n\nFor all cereals the Commission proposes for 1992/93 maintenance of the \n1991/92 prices. As the transitional period for Spain will have come to an end all Spanish \ninstitutional prices will henceforth be Identical with those for the \nCommunity of Ten. Under the arrangements for the second stage of Portuguese accession the \nfirst step In moving the intervention price for common wheat to the \nCommunity price will be taken and the specific aids for cereals will be \nadjusted. Target prices are derived from the intervention prices by adding a market \ncomponent and a component representing the cost of transport between the \nOrmes and Duisburg areas. Updating the transport cost entails a slight \nreduction in target prices. The 1991792 overshoot of the maximum guaranteed quantity means that \nprices set by the Council for 1992/93 will automatically be reduced by 3% \nby the Commission. 1. 2. Monthly Increases \n\nGiven the 3% reduction in the intervention prices and the prospect of \nlower interest rates, keeping the monthly increases at their present \nlevel offers the best prospects for disposal of cereals on the Community \nmarket throughout the marketing year. Those for common wheat flour, rye \nflour and groats and meal of durum wheat must however be adjusted to take \naccount of a change In the processing coefficients, as was done in the \ncourse of 1991/92 for calculation of the export refunds. 1. 3. Special premium for breadmaking. wheat and rye '\u2022* \n\nArticle 3 of the basic Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 requires the Council \nto set a special premium each year for common wheat and rye with certain \nquality characteristics. - 16 -\n\nFor the last few years the common wheat premium has been 2X of the \nIntervention price. Given the automatic 3% reduction In the Intervention price from the \nbeginning of 1992/93 it Is proposed to adjust these premiums accordingly \nto ECU 3. 27/t for common wheat and ECU 4. 09/t for rye. 1. 4. Durum wheat aid \n\nThe production aid for durum wheat is an element of producers' Incomes In \ncertain production areas In the same way as Intervention prices. Given \nthe freeze on institutional prices It Is proposed to make no change in \nits amount. In Spain the aid will, like prices and for the same reason, be the same \nas in the Community of Ten. 1. 5. S t a b i l i z e rs and co-resoonsiblIItv \n\nl ew \n\nUnder the CAP reform proposals for cereals It is proposed to retain for \n1992/93 the basic and additional co-responsibility levies and to keep the \nmaximum guaranteed quantity at the level maintained since its \nIntroduction. The Commission draws attention to the need for this proposal to be \nadopted so that the co-responsibility levies will be app 11 cab I e Xjrcjn \n1 June 1992. the date of commencement of the marketing year for \napplication of co-responsibtIIty in the southern countries. Given the persisting imbalance between production and the potential for \ndisposal on either the Community or world market it is proposed to keep \nthe basic co-responsibility levy at a level equivalent to 5% of the \nintervention price for common wheat. Since this will automatically be \nreduced by 3% at the beginning of the new marketing year It is proposed \nto set the basic levy at ECU 8. 17/tonne. Retention of the stabilizers will result, since 1991/92 production \novershot the MGQ, in the Commission's fixing an additional levy of 3% for \n1992/93. - 17 -\n\n1-G- Aid for small caram producers \n\nSince it Is proposed to retain the co-responslblIIty levies It Is \nnecessary to retain the aid to small cereal growers under which the co-\nresponslbl I Ity levy amounts due from them are reimbursed within an \noverall budget allocation. Since It Is proposed to maintain the basic co-responslblIIty levy at 5X \nthe budget allocation can be maintained at ECU 293 million, which already \ncovers the additional levy. 1*7. Aid scheme for amaIiproducerm of certain arable crops \n\nThis was Introduced for 1990/91 and Is applied at Member States' \ndiscretion Instead of the scheme for small cereal producers. Only France \nand Portugal have taken up the option. Under the reform proposals It Is proposed to continue special aid schemes \nfor small producers until 1994/95. Since the basic and additional co-responsibility levies are being \ntemporarily maintained no change should be made In the aid scheme for \n1992/93. 1. 8. Production aid for canary seed, millet and buckwheat \n\nThe scheme was introduced from 1990/91. So far only some Member States, mainly northern ones, have taken It up. Despite lack of producer Interest it Is proposed, pending a decision on \nthe reform proposals, to maintain the same aid levels as In past years. 1. 9. Potato starch \n\nThere Is no market organisation for potatoes but potato starch Is subject \nto the same rules as cereal starch. The minimum price payable for \npotatoes must therefore continue to be aligned on the price level applied \nto maize. - 18 -\n\nAs regards the special premium paid to potato starch producers It appears \nthat the economic position and special conditions of production have not \nsignificantly changed relative to cereal starch production. It Is \naccordingly proposed to retain In 1992/93 the present premium of \nECU 18. 67/tonne. 1. 10. Continuation of a special scheme for temporary set-aside of arable land \n\nIt is not possible to exclude the possibility that the Council's \ndecisions on the reform of the common agricultural policy may be taken \ntoo late for the new set-aside system proposed In that context to be \napplied to sowing for the 1993 crop. Therefore It Is proposed to carry \nforward \"mutatis mutandis\" the temporary set-aside system which was \napplied In 1991/92. - 19 -\n\n2. RICE \n\nPrices and monthly Increases \n\nIt Is proposed to keep the intervention price and the monthly increases \nat their present levels. Updating of the factors of calculation. In particular the costs of \ntransport between Vercelll and Duisburg, leads the Commission to propose \na slight reduction In the target price for husked rice. For Portugal under the arrangements applicable during the second stage of \naccession there will a second move of the rice Intervention price towards \nthe Community level. - 20 -\n\n3. SUGAR \n\n3. 1. The Commission proposes freezing the basic price for sugar-beet, the \n\nintervention price for white sugar and the manufacturing margin. This proposal for sugar-beet relates to the basic price and to the \nminimum prices for A and B sugar-beet which are determined on the basis \nof the ceiling fixed for the basic production levy and for the B levy, \nthe latter without prejudice to an Increase later In the celling in \naccordance with Article 28 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. 3. 2. As regards the reimbursement of storage costs, the Commission also \n\nproposes to maintain the current rate of ECU 0. 52/month, In the light of \nthe proposed freeze on prices. 3. 3. The prices proposed for Spain have been established In accordance with \n\nArticles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 (0J No L 162, \n26. 6. 1991, p. 18). 3. 4. As regards the prices proposal for Portugal, the Commission recalls that \n\nat the time of the accession of Portugal to the Community the basic price \nfor sugar-beet guaranteed by the national regime was higher than that \nguaranteed by the Community regime and sugar prices were lower than those \nguaranteed by the Community regime. With the \"classic\" transition period applying in the sugar sector, sugar \nprices are regulated by Article 238(2) of the Act of Accession of Spain \nand Portugal which provides for a seven-stage move towards alignment when \nthe price of a product is lower than the common price. Thus, since the \n1986/87 marketing year, sugar prices have been automatically Increased by \npart of the difference so that the common price will apply In Portugal as \nof the seventh move to alignment, i. e. from the 1992/93 marketing year. In accordance with the acts of the conference which preceded Portuguese \naccession, the reference \"common prices\" on which Portuguese prices must \nbe aligned are the derived prices applicable in the Ireland/United \nKingdom region, valid for 1992/93. This results in a final increase in \nthe intervention prices for white sugar of ECU 0. 87/100 kg. - 21 -\n\nSugar-beet prices are regulated by Article 238(3)(a) and (b) of the Act \nof Accession of Spain and Portugal which lays down that, where the price \nof a product in Portugal Is higher than the common price, alignment will \nresult from the development of common prices during the seven years \nfollowing accession and that the Council will carry out an analysis of \nthe development of moves towards a price alignment, on the basis of an \nopinion from the Commission accompanied, where appropriate, by suitable \nproposals. Therefore, in order to give an opinion and present suitable proposals, \nthe Commission has analysed the development of prices in the Portuguese \nsugar sector since the accession of Portugal to the Community. 3. 5. The circumstances under which the Treaty of Accession was negotiated have \n\ncompletely changed as regards the sugar sector. , Thus, not only did a \ncertain alignment expected as a result of Increases In Community prices \nfor sugar-beet not occur but common prices were frozen and even reduced \nby 2. 1X since then (1986). Portuguese prices have consequently been \nadjusted to avoid an increase in the gap between them and the common \nprices (Article 238(3)(a) of the Act of Accession). The trend In Portuguese and Community prices for sugar-beet since the \naccession of Portugal to the Community is shown in Table 1. It will be \nseen that the difference existing at the time of accession has been fully \nmaintained, with the Portuguese price continuing to be higher than the \ncommon price and by the same amount, i. e. ECU 1. 26/tonne. 3. 6. The Commission thus notes that for sugar-beet the difference of \n\nECU 1. 26/t between the Portuguese price and the relevant common price \nmeans that only 2. 94% of the Portuguese price has to be made up. Under \nArticle 237 of the Act of Accession, a gap of that size is to be classed \nas minimal because it is even less than the percentage of 3% fixed by the \nsaid Article as minimal. The Commission also emphasises that as the minimum prices for sugar-beet \nin question are determined by reference to regional price differentiation \nin the Ireland/United Kingdom region the sugar-beet price applicable in \nPortugal will be greater than the price applicable in areas where no \nshortfal I exists. ,. The Commission points out that the extent of sugar-beet production \nremains reduced (cf. Table II), despite the transitional quota \narrangements applied for some years now. Since the 1987/88 season, \nproduction has not exceeded 2 000 tonnes. Therefore, in the light of the above, the Commission proposes that the \nCouncil decide that the alignment in the prices of sugar-beet should \ncoincide with the alignment in sugar prices, i. e. from the 1992/93 \nmarketing year. - 22 -\n\nTABLE I \n\nCOMMUNITY AND PORTUGUESE PRICES IN THE SUGAR SECTOR \n\n86/87 87/88 88/89 \n\n89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 \n\n(prop. ) \n\n1. Intervention \nprice for \nwhite sugar \n(ECU/100 kg) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(1) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/100 kg) \n\n2. Basic price \nfor beet \n(ECU/tonne) \n- Portugal \n- EEC(2) \n\nDifference \n(ECU/tonne) \n\n50,12 51,00 51. 88 \n55. 39 55. 39 55. 39 \n\n51. 68 52,47 53. 35 54. 22 \n54,22 54,22 54,22 \n54,31 \n\n-5,27 -4,39 -3,51 \n\n-2,63 -1,75 -0. 87 \n\n0 \n\n43,72 43,72 43,72 \n42,46 42,46 42,46 \n\n42,90 42,83 42,83 41,57 \n41,57 41,57 41,57 \n41,64 \n\n+1,26 +1,26 +1,26 \n\n+1,26 \n\n+1,26 +1. 26 \n\n0 \n\n(1) \n(2) \n\nUK/IRL derived intervention price. Basic price for beet Increased by the regional price \ndifferentiation in the Ireland/United Kingdom area. - 23 -\n\nTABLE 11 \n\nPortuoal - Quota and Sugar Production \n\n(tonnes) \n\nMainland Portugal \n\nAzores \n\nPortugal. total \n\nQuota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. Quota \n\nProd. 1986/87 \n\n60. 000 \n\n1987/88 \n\n60. 000 \n\n0 \n\n207 \n\n10. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n70. 000 \n\n4. 328 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 663 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 870 \n\n1988/89 \n\n60. 000 \n\n176 \n\n10. 000 \n\n839 \n\n70,000 \n\n1. 015 \n\n1989/90 \n\n60. 000 \n\n656 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 046 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1,702 \n\n1990/91 \n\n60. 000 \n\n550 \n\n10. 000 \n\n1. 100 \n\n70. 000 \n\n1. 650 \n\n1991/92 \n\n60. 000 \n\n(150)* \n\n10. 000 \n\n(1. 050)* \n\n70. 000 \n\n(1. 200)* \n\n(*) Provisional estimate. - 24 \n\n-\n\nTABLE III \n\nMCE PP. 0P0SALS 1992/93 SUCA* \n\nfor beet \n\nIntervention price \n\nfor A beet <1> \nfor B beet W \n\n7. Basic price \n2. Mini sua price \n3. Mlnlmia price \n4. 5. Target price \n6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Monthly relaburseaent of storage costs \n\nThreshold price for white sugar \nfor raw sugar \nIntervention price \nThreshold price \nThreshold price \n\nfor raw sugar \nfor wo lasses \n\nfor white sugar \n\nfor white sugar \n\nIn Spain (*) \n\nfor beet \n\n77. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \n(b) \nIntervention price \n12. Prices applicable \nBasic price \n(a) \nIntervention price \n(b) \n\nfor beet \n\nfor white sugar \nIn Portugal (*) \n\nfor white sugar \n\n1991/92 \nPrice \n\nECU \n\n1992/93 \nProposal \nECU \n\nChange \n% \n\nt \nt \nt \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \nq \n\nt \nq \n\nt \nq \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54. 60 \n6. 89 \n0,52 \n\n46. 84 \n67. 29 \n\n42,83 \n53. 35 \n\n40,00 \n39,20 \n27,20 \n53. 07 \n55. 79 \n63. 90 \n43. 94 \n54,60 \n6,89 \n0,52 \n\n46,08 \n59,57 \n\n47,57 \n54,22 \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 \n\n- 1. 6 \n'2,8 \n\n- 2. 9 \n* 7. 6 \n\n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n\n98 X of the basic price for beet. 68 X of the basic price for beet, subject to application of Article 28(5) \nof Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81. Established in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1716/91 of 13 \nJune 1991 concerning the alignment of the sugar and beet prices \napplicable In Spain on the common prices. Established In accordance with Article 238 of the Act of Accession after \nalignment and including the effect of regional differentiation. - *D -\n\n4. OLIVE Qlt \n\n4. 1 \n\nPrices and aids \n\n4. 1. 1 In the context of a general freeze on prices the Commission proposes to \n\nmaintain the target price for olive oil at the same level as in 1991/92. 4. 1. 2 As was envisaged In the proposal for consumption aid for 1991/92 \n\n(COM 91) 366 final) the Commission considers that in the light of market \ndevelopments in the sector it is appropriate in future to fix both the \nproduction aid and the consumption aid at the same time and this year to \nmake some transfer from one aid to the other. The Council, when It \nagreed on an ECU 7 reduction In consumption aid for 1991/92 announced Its \nagreement to this policy, adding that the change should have no effect on \nthe budget, in the light of the said reduction. 4. 1. 3 The Commission proposes an increase In the production aid paid to large \n\nproducers of ECU 12/100 kg and a reduction in the Intervention price also \nof ECU 12. This change will have no effect on the income of producers \nwho market their oil. In the case of small producers who consume a large \nproportion or, in certain cases, all their output, on the farm the \nreduction of the Intervention price will have less, or In some cases, no \neffect on revenue. Bearing this and the general policy of favouring \nsmall producers In mind, the Commission considers that there should be \nsome increase in the aid paid to small producers but a smaller one than \nIs proposed for commercial producers. Thus the increase in the aid \nproposed for small producers is ECU 6/100 kg, which will reduce the \ndifference between the aid for small producers and that for large \nproducers to about ECU 8/100 kg. 4. 1. 4 As regards consumption aid, the Commission proposes a reduction of \n\nECU 8/100 kg. Taking into account the reduction in the intervention \nprice, this will enable the representative market price to be reduced by \nECU 4/100 kg. This reduction, taking the representative market price \nback part of the way towards the level prevailing in 1990/91, reflects \nthe change in market circumstances. With 1991/92 production having \nrecovered sharply from the depressed level of 1990/91, an Increase In \nconsumption in the current campaign may be expected but the 1992/93 \ncampaign is likely to begin with stock levels of a<higher level than at \nthe beginning of this year. - 26 -\n\n4. 1. 5 In addition to the existing Institutional criteria, it is also proposed \n\nthat deductions from aid (for measures to Improve quality, aid for \nprofessional organizations and promotional measures) be set on the basis \nnot only of the tasks allocated but also on the basis of the amendments \nproposed to the aid and appropriations accumulated over previous years. 4. 1. 6 With regard to consumption aid In Spain, the reduction in aid for the \nCommunity of Ten will result In a smaller Increase in Spanish aid In \naccordance with the rules on alignment laid down in Article 2 of \nRegulation (EEC) No 3416/90. With regard to Portugal, there should be slight changes to the current \nlevel of aid to consolidate the level of consumption in the country. An increase in production aid will be affected in the Iberian peninsula \nthrough the normal alignment machinery. All the Commission's proposals for the 1992/93 marketing year are \nsummarized in the table. For comparison, the data on which production \naid and consumption aid in the sector were based during the 1990/91 and \n1991/92 marketing years are also shown. 4. 2. Related measures \n\nIn accordance with the abovementioned proposal of October 1991, the \nCommission proposes to the Council that Regulation No 136/66/EEC be \namended so that: \n\nall institutional prices and aids for olive oil are set \nsimultaneously in the price package; \n\n- \n\nwhen the representative market price (and consumption aid) are set, \nless weight is given than in the past to the movement of seed oil \nprices. - 27 \n\nOlive oil price proposals \n\n(Ecus/100 kg) \n\nType of price or aaount \n\n90/91 \n\n91/92 \n\n92/93 \n\n1. Target price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n322. 01 \n\n322,01 \n\n322,01 \n\n2. Intervention \n\nprice EUR-10 \n\n- Spain \n\n- Portugal \n\n5. Representative aarket price \n\nfor olive oil \n\n6. Threshold price \n\n7. Production aid for olive oil \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\n215. 87 \n\n215,87 \n\n203,87 \n\n175. 12 \n207. 58 \n\n785. 37 \n209,65 \n\n184,63 \n199,95 \n\n190. 28 \n\n197,28 \n\n193,28 \n\n189,11 \n\n194,20 \n\n189,98 \n\n39,61 \n35,46 \n70. 83 \n\n45,85 \n42,53 \n70,83 \n\n55,10 \n52,61 \n82,83 \n\n8. Production aid to olive growers whose \n\naverage production \nolive oil per aarketIng year \n\nIs \n\nless than 500 kg \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Coaaunlty of Ten \n\nConsumption aid applicable \n\n- Spain \n- Portugal \n- Community of Ten \n\n9. Amounts withheld on production aid \n\n- quality \n- aid to producer organizations and \n\nImprovement \n\nassociations \n\nthereof \n\n44,36 \n40,21 \n81,62 \n\n42,93 \n47,92 \n60,90 \n\n51,81 \n48,49 \n81,62 \n\n45,67 \n49. 42 \n53. 90 \n\n60,76 \n58,27 \n87,62 \n\n45,75 \n48,25 \n45,90 \n\n2,0 \n7,5 \n\n2. 0 \n1,5 \n\n1. 6 % \n1. 2 % \n\n10. Amount withheld on consumption aid \n\n- promotion measures \n- aid to trade \n\norganizations \n\n4,0 \n7. 4 \n\n1,0 \n1,4 \n\n0. 7 % \n2. 0 % \n\n\f- 28 -\n\n5. OILSEEDS AND PROTEIN CROPS \n\n5. 1. OlIseeds \n\nThe Council has already taken the necessary decisions on the support \narrangements for oilseed producers. 5. 2. Protein Crops (Peas. Field Beans and Sweet Lupins; Dried Fodder) \n\nFor 1992/93 the elements of the existing market organization for protein \ncrops should be retained, with no changes. 5. 2. 1 Stabilizer Regime: \n\nThe Maximum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) system is applied to pulses but no \nMGQ Is applied to dried fodder. The level of the MGQ was fixed for an \ninitial period of three marketing years, from 1988/89 to 1990/91 and \nextended for the 1991/92 marketing year. The current MGQ system, as applied during the last four maketlng years, \nresults in the Commission making adjustments In support when production \nexceeds the MGQ. The Commission proposes that, for 1992/93 for pulses, the MGQ system be \nmaintained unchanged. 5. 2. 2 Prices: Peas, field beans, sweet lupins (pulses) \n\nUnder Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82. the Council is \nrequried to set. annually, various institutional prices for pulses. The Commission proposes that for the 1992/93 marketing year these \ncomponents should be maintained unchanged. 5. 2. 3 Prices; Dried fodder \n\nThe Council is required, under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1117/89, \nto set, annually, a guide price for dried fodder. The Commission \nproposes that the dried fodder guide price for the *\\992/93 marketing year \nwill be maintained unchanged. The coefficient to be used in the calculation of the aid has already been \nfixed by the Council at 80X for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5. 3. Other protein crops; Lentils, chick peas and vetches \n\nIn Regulation (EEC) No 762/89 the Council introduced a per hectare based \naid system for the growers of lentils, chick peas and vetches, which will \nexpire on 30. 6. 1992. It is proposed to extend this aid system until the \nend of the 1992/93 marketing year, and maintain the aid at ECU 75/ha. - 29 -\n\n6. TEXTILE FIBRES \n\n6. 1 \n\nCotton \n\n6. 1. 1 Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87<1>, the \n\nCommission presents In Annex I a report on the operation of the aid \nsystem for cotton together with a proposal for adapting this system. 6. 1. 2. Under paragraph 8 of Protocol No 4, a guide price Is fixed each year by \nthe Council In order to support cotton production In Community regions \nwhere it is Important to the agricultural economy and to enable producers \nto earn a fair income. In the light of the proposals for the chief alternative crops, and taking \nInto account the conclusions of the attached report, it is proposed that \nthe guide price be maintained for 1992/93, subject, however, to a \ntechnical adjustment resulting from the change proposed to the standard \nquality. It would be appropriate for the standard quality to be brought \ninto line with the quality of cotton effectively marketed In the \nCommunity^2). In order to avoid a drop In operators' Income and not at \nthe same time increase EAGGF expenditure, the guide price for 1992/93 \nshould be raised to ECU 102. 79/100 kg. 6. 1. 3 Under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81, a minimum price \nfor unginned cotton has to be fixed each year at a level which enables \nproducers to sell at a price as close as possible to the guide price. For 1991/92 the Council fixed the minimum price for unginned cotton at \n95X of the guide price. The differential between the guide price and the \nminimum price, which serves to maintain the necessary market fluidity, \nhas not given rise to problems. It is therefore proposed that the \nminimum price for unginned cotton for 1992/93 also be fixed at 95X of the \n(adjusted) guide price. I. e. at ECU 97. 65/100 kg. 6 1. 4 As explained in the report, it i \n\nregime but to limit the size of \nthe course of a season, with any \ninto the following season. This \na better assurance of the price \ndiminishing the long-term effect \norder to give producers greater \nguaranteed quantity be fixed for \nannually. The figure proposed I \nfigure as last year but adapted \nstandard qualIty. s proposed to continue the stabiliser \nthe price reductions which may be made in \nexcess beyond that limit carried forward \namendment is designed to give producers \nthey will receive in any year but without \niveness of the stabilizer. Also, in \nsecurity, it is proposed that the maximum \n\na period of four years rather than \n\ns 701 000 tonnes, effectively the same \nto take account of the change in the \n\n6. 1. 5 It is proposed that the programme for small producers (less than 2. 5 ha) \n\nbe extended by four marketing years. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14. This improvement in the standard quality leads to a proportional \nreduction in the quantity eligible for aid. - 30 -\n\n6. 2. Fibre flax \n\nUnder Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70<1>, a flat rate of aid \nper hectare has to be fixed each year for fibre flax to ensure an even \nbalance between the necessary production and the scope for disposal. For \n1991/92 the aid was fixed at ECU 374. 36/ha, of which ECU 37. 44/ha was not \npaid to the beneficiaries but earmarked for funding promotional measures \nand the search for new markets. Areas under fibre flax in the Community \nhave risen In recent years (78 900 ha In 1990 and 1989, 73 000 in 1988, \n67 000 In 1987), which has led to a sharp drop in flax straw prices and \nIn producers' income. To counter this market imbalance, the areas under \nfibre flax in the Community fell in 1991 to reach only 55 100 ha (-30X) \nand a further decline Is expected for 1992. Production of flax fibre \nshould consequently go down substantially In order to reach a new \nbalance. In view of the current and foreseeable situation on the market, \naid of ECU 374. 36/ha is proposed also for 1992/93. Furthermore, as far \nas the deduction of the aid for promotional measures is concerned, It is \nproposed that it be kept at 10X of the aid, i. e. again at ECU 37. 44/ha. Such promotional measures are necessary to ensure the desired market \nequilibrium in the longer term. 6. 3. Flax seed \n\nUnder Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 569/76(2), the Council fixes a \nguide price each year for flax seed In order to ensure a fair income for \nproducers. The guide price for the Community of Ten and Portugal was fixed at \nECU 54. 49/100 kg for 1991/92. It Is proposed that for 1992/93 the price \nshould again be fixed at ECU 54. 49/100 kg for these Member States. 6. 3. 2 In the light of the proposals for alternative crops, keeping the guide \n\nprice the same for flax seed should allow the cultivation of seed flax to \nbe maintained, at least in production areas where suitable yields can be \nobtained. In the case of flax seed obtained from fibre flax, the \nproposed price should ensure a fair Income for producers, given the \nforeseeable recovery of the market price for flax straw and the level of \nthe flat-rate aid granted per hectare. 6. 3. 3 In accordance with Article 93 of the Act of Accession of Spain and \n\nPortugal it is proposed that the guide price for Spain be set at \nECU 51. 67/100 kg. (1) \n(2) \n\n0J No L 146, 4. 7. 1970, p. 1. 0J No L 67, 15. 3. 1976, p. 29. - 31 -\n\n6. 3. 4 Although no changes are proposed in the linseed scheme this year, the \n\nCommission recognises that It is anomalous that this oilseed is subject \nneither to the maximum guaranteed area system currently applying to other \noilseeds nor to the set aside requirement to which the producers of other \noilseeds will be subject under the proposed new support system for \nproducers of arabel crops. A choice between these alternatives can best \nbe made once the new support system for producers of arable crops has \nbeen adopted but the Commission wishes to take the opportunity of, \naccounclng to linseed producers that unless by the end of this calendar \nyear the Iinseed has been taken Into the proposed support system for \narable crops it will, from 1993/94 onwards be subject to a maximum \nguaranteed area system based on the area sown in 1991/92. Under this \nsystem the aid will be reduced by 0. 5X for each 1X Increase In the \nplanted area compared with the base year. 6. 4. Hemp \n\n6. 4. 1 Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70, a flat rate of aid per \nhectare has to be fixed for hemp to ensure an even balance between the \nnecessary production and the scope for disposal. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 339. 42/ha. For 1992/93, It Is proposed to keep the aid at Its present level. 6. 4. 2 The Commission considers that, given the forseeable trend in prices for \n\nfibres and seeds, on the one hand, and the level of the aid for hemp seed \nas well as the prices for other crops, on the other, the proposed flat-\nrate aid should enable producers' Incomes and the areas sown to be \nmaintained. 6. 5. Hemp seed \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3698/880) provides that aid Is to be \nfixed each year for hemp seed at a level which Is fair to producers and \ntakes account of the Community's supply requirements. For the 1991/92 marketing year, the aid was fixed at ECU 24. 59/100 kg. It is proposed that for 1992/93 the aid be maintained at its present \nlevel. \u2022 \n\n(1) \n\nOJ No L 325, 29. 11. 1988, p. 2. - d* -\n\n6. 6. SiIkworms \n\nArticle 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 845/72<2) provides that aid is to be \nfixed each year per box of silkworm eggs used, at a level which helps to \nensure a fair Income for silkworm rearers. For 1991/92, the aid was fixed at ECU 111. 81/box. For 1992/93 it Is \nproposed In view of the current and foreseeable prices for raw silk that \nIt remain unchanged at ECU 111. 81/box. (2) \n\nOJ No L 100, 27. 4. 1972, p. 1 \n\n5) \n\n\f- 33 -\n\n7. WINE \n\n7. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain the same guide price In 1992/93 as In \n1991/92. 7. 2. Related measures \n\nThe Commission Intends to present proposals in the course of this year \nfor the reform of the common organization for wine. - However, it does not \nconsider It opportune to open this discussion whilst the attention of the \nCouncil Is concentrated on the major series of reform already proposed in \nother areas of the common agricultural policy. It therefore proposes to \nextend certain deadlines set out In existing legislation, that is to say: \n\nthe submission of reports on the definition of wine-growing zones, \nenrichment, the effectiveness of structural measures on compulsory \ndistillation, the sulphur dioxide content of wine, sparkling wine \nand dessert wine (in preparation) and measures to enable groups of \nproducers to be treated in the same way as producers for compulsory \ndistillation contracts; \n\ndetermination of the rules for calculating the quantities to be \ndistilled in each production region (uniform percentage and \nreference year), agreed to following the Dublin agreement but held \nover until 31 August 1992, and the derogation given to allow the \ncompulsory distillation scheme to be applied according to special \nrules in Greece; \n\nsetting of the trial period for certain deacidification practices \nsoon to expire; \n\nfixing of the period during which that part of the aid intended to \npromote the use of grape must for the production of Juice may be \nearmarked for the promotion of grape Juice (already extended last \nyear until 31 August 1992). - 34 -\n\n8. FRUIT AND VEGETABLES \n\n8. 1. Basic and buy Ino-In prices \n\nPursuant to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the \ncommon organization of the market In fruit and vegetables, each year the \nCommission proposes a basic price and a buying-in price for each of the \nproducts listed In Annex II to the said Regulation, namely cauliflowers, \napricots, nectarines, peaches, lemons, tomatoes, aubergines, pears, table \ngrapes, apples, satsumas, mandarins, Clementines and oranges. It Is proposed that the basic and buying-In prices of all products be \nkept at their present level. The Commission will draw the necessary \nconsequences of any overshooting of the intervention thresholds once the \nfinal level of withdrawals during the 1991/92 marketing year is known. In the case of Spain and Portugal, the prices will be further aligned In \naccordance with Articles 149 and 285 of the Act of Accession. This Is \nthe third alignment for Spain and the second for Portugal. 8. 2. Intervention thresholds \n\nThe intervention threshold for apples Is now set until the end of the \n1991/92 marketing year. With a view to ensuring the market equilibrium \nin this sector, it Is proposed that this threshold be made permanent and \nat the rate in force for the 1991/92 marketing year, namely 3X of the \naverage production for consumption as fresh fruit pertaining over the \nlast five marketing years for which figures are available. 8. 3. Processed fruit and vegetables \n\nThe system of quotas for processed tomatoes which has applied for the \npast four years expires at the end of this season and the previous \nguarantee threshold system will automatically come back into force. Many \nin the industry prefer the certainty of a quota system and the Commission \nrecognises that it does have many advantages. It is too late to disturb \nthe legitimate expectations that quotas will not apply this year but the \nCommission is prepared to propose their re introduction next year based on \nprevious levels, not on production in 1992/93. In 'the meantime, in order \nto avoid a sudden increase In expenditure arising from the non-\napplication of a quota system this year and to avoid a conflict between \nthe two systems next year, the Commission proposes that any aid reduction \nwhich may be needed as a result of the threshold being exceeded this year \nwill apply this year rather than next. - 35 -\n\n9. TOBACCO \n\n9. 1. As the proposed reform of this regime cannot now be applied to the 1992 \ncrop, the Commission proposes to extend unchanged the 1991 levels of the \nnorm and intervention prices, premiums, derived intervention prices, \nrefrence qualities and production areas. Prices also remain unchanged \nfor certain problematic varieties where the specific price reductions \ndecided In the past have to be continued. 9. 2. For certain varieties, however, the proportion of the lowest grade \n\nacceptable for intervention which is purchased by processors has risen to \nlevels at which, under existing rules, the lowest grade should now become \nthe representative one. The full application of this rule would, \nhowever, have a more drastic effect on the level of premla paid for these \nvarieties than Is reasonable In the context of this final year of the \nexisting regime. As an interim measure, therefore, a premium reduction \nwill be applied in cases where a processor purchases more than a given \npercentage of the lowest quality. This measure will have no effect on \nthe minimum price payable to the producer. 9. 3. Furthermore, according to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \n\nCommission presents In Annex II a report on the situation of production \nand marketing of certain varieties of tobacco. - 36 -\n\n10. MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS \n\n10. 1. Prices \n\nThe Commission proposes to maintain In 1992/93 the same level of target \nand Intervention prices as In 1991/92. This proposal assumes that the \nCouncil will decide to continue the milk quota system, as the Commission \nhas already proposed. 10. 2. Price alignment in Spain and Portugal \n\nIn accordance with the rules of the Treaty of Accession (Article 70(3)), \nthe Commission proposes that the common intervention prices for butter \nand skimmed-milk powder should be applied in Spain. For Portugal, the \ncommon intervention price for butter has already been applied since the \nbeginning of the 1991/92 marketing year. For skimmed-milk powder the \nCommission proposes, as provided for In the Treaty of Accession, that the \ndifference in price between the Azores and mainland Portugal should be \neliminated and therefore that the current Intervention price in the \nAzores should be applied to Portugal as a whole. 10. 3. CoresDonslblilty lew \n\nTaking Into account the serious budgetary situation and the general \ncontext of maintaining the existing price level, the coresponsiblIty levy \nmust be maintained at its present level. 10. 4. Quotas \n\nThe existing quota regime expires on 1 April 1992. Proposals for quotas \nfrom that date onwards have been presented In the context of the reform \nof the common agricultural policy. The proposal to maintain prices at \nthe same level as in 1991/92 presupposes that the Council will reach \ndecisions on the basis of these proposals before 1 April. It would be \nquite impossible to maintain support prices without limits on quantities. 10. 5. Inward processing \n\nInward processing Is currently suspended in the milk sector, with a \nspecific exemption for certain products. The Commission proposes that \nboth this suspension and the exemption should continue In 1992/93. - 37 -\n\n11- \n\nBEEF AND VEAL \n\n11. 1. Community prices \n\nIt is proposed to maintain the guide price at the same level as in \n1991/92, I. e. at ECU 200/100 kg llveweight. It Is also proposed to \nmaintain the intervention price at ECU 343/100 kg carcase weight for \nqua Iity R3. 11. 2. Public intervention \n\nWhilst the Council reaches decisions on the reform it is proposed not to \nadapt the existing Council rules. 11. 3. Promt a. No change for the special beef premium Is proposed, compared to Its level \nin 1991/92, i. e. ECU 40 per animal (with an unchanged maximum of 90 \nanimals). As regards the suckler cow premium, the level should be fixed \nat the level existing in 1990/91 (exclusive of the once-off increase \ndecided for 1991/92), I. e. ECU 40/cow (without headage limit); with the \npossibility of a national supplement subject to a maximum ECU 25/cow; and \nthe associated provision for payment by EAGGF of the first ECU 20/cow of \nthis national supplement in the case of Greece, Ireland, and the United \nKingdom insofar as Northern Ireland Is concerned. 11. 4. The Commission remains concerned at the continuing difficulties In the \n\nbeef sector as reflected by heavy intervention purchasing and low prices \nto producers. Accordingly, It expects early decisions by the Council in \nthe reform context to redress current trends. The Commission will \ncontinue to monitor' the situation closely and, in the absence of the \nnecessary Council decisions on reform of the sector, reserves the right \nto bring forward proposals to deal with the situation in the event of a \nfurther deterioration in the market. - 38 -\n\n12. SHEEPMEAT AND GOATMEAT \n\n12. 1. Institutional prices for the 1992 marketing year were fixed in the \n\n1991/92 price package. As regards institutional prices for 1993 the Commission wishes to stress \nthat within Its proposals for the reform of the sector the application of \nthe stabilizer mechanism is to be frozen at 7X (Its 1990 level). This, \ntogether with the introduction of a limited producer guarantee for \npremium purposes and the reduction of 2X In the basic price fixed by the \nCouncil for the 1992 marketing year, should limit the development of \nproduction. The Commission therefore considers that Its cautious \nInstitutional price policy should be continued. Under these circumstance \nIt proposes to maintain the basic price unaltered for 1993. However, \nshould the Council fail to adopt Its reform proposals, the Commission \nreserves the right to make further proposals with respect to the 1993 \ninstitutional prices. 12. 2. In the context of the reform of the sheep sector, which has operated \n\nsince 1990, the opening of private storage measures is dependent on the \nlevel of the weekly seasonal!zed basic price. However, because of the \nimportance of the variable slaughter premium in Great Britain, \nparticularly in budgetary terms, the seasonal scale of the basic price \nhas been influenced since then more by the requirements of the slaughter \npremium than by those of private storage. Since the variable slaughter \npremium no longer applies in Great Britain, it is now opportune to adjust \nthe seasonal scale so as to improve Its application insofar as private \nstorage Is concerned. 12. 3. Sheepmeat production throughout the Community tends towards two seasonal \n\npeaks, the first in late winter and spring in southern parts and the \nsecond in mid-summer and autumn in northern parts of the Community. Peak \nproduction in the south in spring is relatively high cost as it is \ndependent on cereal feeding while peak production in the north is less so \nas it is generally grass based. In order to provide a reasonable measure \nof market support at peak production periods throughout the Community \nwhile at the same time taking some account of differing production costs, \nit is proposed to maintain the overall shape of the seasonal scale. Nevertheless, it Is felt that the extent of the increase or decrease in \nthe seasonalized price in comparison to the basic price itself should be \nreduced considerably from the levels associated with the variable \nslaughter premium in order to take Into account the abovementioned \ndifferences in peak production throughout the Community. Therefore, it \nis proposed that the peak and trough levels of the 1992 seasonalized \nbasic price be reduced by 25X. Experience gained to date in the \noperation of the tendering system for aid to private storage would \nsuggest that eligibility for tendering would not change significantly, \nconsequent to such an alteration in the seasonal scale. - 39 -\n\n13. PIGMEAT \n\nBasic price \n\nThe basic Regulation for pigmeat provides for the fixation of a basic \nprice, the aim of which Is to trigger market Intervention measures (in \npractice, aids to private storage). Such measures may be Initiated when \nthe average market price in the Community falls below 103X of the basic \nprice. The basic price is In force from 1 July to 30 June. From 1 November 1984 to June 1990 the basic price for pig carcases of \nstandard quality stood at ECU 2. 033. 30 per tonne, and for the period \nJuly 9190 to June 1992 has been fixed at ECU 1. 897. 00 per tonne. it is proposed to maintain this level for the marketing year 1992/93. The definition of standard quality should remain at: \n\n(a) carcase weighing 60 kg to less than 120 kg: grade U, \n(b) carcase weighing 10 kg to 180kg: grade R. - 40 -\n\nANNEX t \n\nReport on the on\u00abrntjQn of the system of aid for cotton \n\n(to be submitted to the Council by the Commission) \n\n1. introduction \n\nArticle 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87(1) provides that by the \n1992/93 marketing year at the latest, the Commission Is to submit a report \non the operation of the system of aid to the Council. If the report shows \nit to be necessary, the Council Is to decide on any adjustments to the \nsystem. 2. Basic provisions of the system of aid for cotton \n\nA. The system of production aid Introduced for cotton by Protocol No 4 annexed \n\nto the Act of Accession of Greece and adjusted by Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1964/87 provides basically for: \n\n(1) the granting of aid In respect of a quantity of cotton of a certain \n\nquality (standard quality); \n\n(2) the calculation of the aid on the basis of the difference between a \n\nnorm price and a world market price fixed for unginned cotton (raw \ncotton) with a view to permitting the disposal of Community production \nat the world price;*2) \n\n(3) the granting of aid to ginning plants provided they have paid the \n\nproducer a minimum price which Is close to the norm price and takes \naccount of the quality of the product delivered; \n\n(4) a reduction in the aid where production exceeds a maximum guaranteed \n\nquantity (MGQ). (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1964/87 adjusting the system of aid for cotton \n\n(OJ No L 184, 3. 7. 1987, p. 14). (2) The report annexed to the 1987/88 price package says that the Commission \n\ndrew the Council's attention in particular to the problems inherent In \ngranting aid for unginned cotton (basically the lack of prices for seed and \nthe difficulty of assessing the cost of ginning). Noting in addition that \nthe difficulties It experienced in calculating the aid stemmed almost \nexclusively from those components of the calculation not related to fibre, \nthe Commission proposed to grant the aid In respect of the latter. However, \nthe Council did not endorse the Commission's conclusions. Noting now that \nsince that time these problems have persisted but not worsened and In the \nlight also of experience with oilseeds (soya panel), the Commission is \nrefraining from proposing such an amendment again. - 41 -\n\nB. In addition to this system of production aid, In 1990<1) the Council \nintroduced a system of aid for small cotton producers (cultivating up to \n2. 5 hectares) for the 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92 marketing years to allow \nthem to recover the additional costs of manual harvesting. (They are \nunable to undertake mechanical harvesting owing to the small size of their \nholdings. ) It appears from the development of the area cultivated by small \nproducers that the additional aid granted was too attractive by comparison \nwith the aid granted to other producers. However, the effect of the \nIncrease in the area planted by small producers has been to diminish the \naid, thus moving the scheme closer to an equilibrium and the Commission \ntherefore proposes to extend It unchanged. 3. The way the system of aid operates \n\nWhile It permits reasonable expansion of Community cotton cultivation, the \npresent aid system has curbed excessive growth In production, thus limiting \nEAGGF Guarantee expenditure on cotton and safegarding traditional \ndeliveries from non-member countries, which Include some developing \ncountr ies. (a) Firstly, during the three years preceding accession, areas under cotton \namounted on average to 148 600 ha in Greece and 54 700 ha in Spain \ncompared with 260 300 ha and 76 700 ha respectively on average during \nthe period 1989 to 1991. In addition, areas under cotton In these two \ncountries, which amounted to 273 100 ha before Spain's accession and \nrose to 391 700 ha in 1988/89, fell back from 1989/90 to 311 500 ha In \n1991/92 (Table I). During the last five marketing years, aid for cotton \nfell on average by 14. 6% (ECU 14. 584/100 kg) as a result of the \nco-responsibility arrangements, thus reducing the average norm price to \nECU 81. 372/100 kg (Table II). Community cotton production, which rose \nsubstantially until 1988/89 (1 190 000 tonnes), subsequently declined \nto 850 000 tonnes (estimate) in 1991/92. During the period under consideration, average production was around \n1 million tonnes (1 009 000 tonnes). (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 Instituting a system of aid in favour of small \n\ncotton producers (OJ No L 116, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1). - 42 -\n\n(b) Secondly, as regards the financial consequences of the \n\nco-responsibility arrangements, savings amount In total to ECU 766 \nmillion for the period 1987/88 to 1991/92. or ECU 153 million on \naverage per marketing year (Table III). (c) As regards trade, Imports of cotton fibres Into the Community In 1990 \n\nwere only slightly down on those In 1986 and are still above 1 million \ntonnes (Table IV), deliveries from Spain and in particular from Greece \nto both other Member States and non-member countries did not fall \n(Table V) and the Community's self-sufficiency rate Is only around 25X \n(Table VI). To conclude, experience gained since the 1987 change to the aid system \nIndicates that the latter has operated satisfactory. For these reasons the \nCommission considers that the present system should be maintained, subject \nto certain technical adjustments to Improve the way It functions. Before the 1996/97 marketing year, the Commission will submit a report to \nthe Council on the future arrangements for cotton in light of experience \ngained in this area after the changes proposed below and after the \nintroduction of the system contemplated for major crops under the reform of \nthe CAP. 4. Proposed changes \n\nA. Stabilizer arrangements \n\nWhile considering that the stabilizer arrangements have basically achieved \ntheir objectives, the Commission points out that In the framework of the \ndiscussions on the agricultural price proposals for 1991/92 the Council \ncalled on the Commission \"in the context of the upcoming revision of the \nstabilizer for cotton, to see what measures would be appropriate for \nprotecting producers against the very substantial price fluctuations \nbetween one season and the next, without thereby Jeopardizing the economic \neffectiveness of the system. The Commission Is aware of the fact that the reduction varies greatly, \nwhich Introduces great uncertainty as regards anticipated income. During \nthe period under consideration, the reduction varied'between 6X and 25X \n(Table VII); this figure would have been even higher if a buffer had not \nexisted. The present system, which Is based on the calculation of estimated \nproduction and actual production, has not affected the way the aid system, \nhas functioned despite the differences sometimes recorded between those two \ncomponents. - 43 -\n\nLastly, the present stabilizer arrangements provide for annual fixing of \nthe MGQ. Although a maximum of 752 000 tonnes has always been used, this \nannual fixing is an additional source of uncertainty among producers. Under these circumstances, to remedy the abovementioned drawbacks. It Is \nproposed: \n\n1. to discontinue the annual fixing of the MGQ; \n\n2. to discontinue the progressive reductions In bands where the MGQ Is \nexceeded but to fix a reduction resulting from the app11 cat Ion of a \ncoefficient calculated on the basis of the overrun in the MGQ; that \ncoefficient Is to be calculated so as to bring about a reduction \ncomparable with the present reduction but more equitable In the case of \nproduction levels which are close to the present band of 15 000 tonnes; \n\n3. to limit the reduction applicable to a marketing year to 20X while \n\ncarrying over that part of the reduction above the 20X maximum to the \nfollowing marketing year; such a change should provide greater \nstability for the stabilizer arrangements; \n\n4. to make the MGQ equal to 701 000 tonnes In order to ensure budget \n\nneutrality. In view of the change in the standard quality (see B(a) \nbelow). B. Other chances \n\n(a) Determination of the standard quality \n\nDetermining the quantity of cotton eligible for the aid requires taking \na sample to record the Impurities and moisture content in order to \nadjust the weight as such of the cotton placed under supervision, \ntaking account of the difference compared with a standard quality (3X \ninorganic impurities and 14% moisture, the organic impurities content \nnot being taken into account). The standard quality used has turned out to be very different from the \nactual quality of cotton produced (around 3% impurities including 1% \nInorganic impurities and 10X moisture). Substantial adjustments to the \ncontract price and to the quantity of product eligible for aid were \ntherefore necessary (Table VIII). Furthermore, as organic impurities are not taken into account, the \nproducers were not encouraged to produce clean cotton, to the detriment \nof the quality of product delivered. Under these circumstances the Commission proposes the following \nstandard quality: 3% impurities and 10X moisture, which results in a \nreduction of 6. 74x1 in the quantity eligible for aid. 100 - (1 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n100 - (3 + 14) \n\n100 - (3 \u2022 10) \n\n\f- 44 -\n\n(b) Fixing the aid after the event \n\nWhile the Commission considers that despite the lack of intervention or \nother measures to facilitate disposal, the latter has not posed major \nproblems. It nevertheless notes that glnners who were not able to sell \nfibres on placing under supervision, the latest time limit for the \nsubmission of aid applications, receive Insufficient aid where there Is \na fall in the world price. By introducing the possibility of applying \nfor the aid after placing under supervision, the problem would be \nso Ived. 5. This report Is accompanied by a proposal for a Council Regulation: \n\n- \n\n- \n\nadapting for the second time the system of aid for cotton; \namending Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 laying down the general rules for \nthe system of aid for cotton (the aim of these two proposals is to \namend the stabilizer arrangements In line with point 4. A. above); \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 1152/90 instituting a system of aid In \nfavour of small cotton producers (the aim of this proposal Is to extend \nthe arrangements as indicated In point 2. B. above). - 45 -\n\nTABLE \n\nL \n\nChange In Coaaunltv areas under cotton (ha) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nITALY \n\nTOTAL \n\n1978/79 \n1979/80 \n1980/81 \n9 1978/80 \n\n1981/82 \n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \ni 1983/85 \n\n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n1991/92 \n9 1989/91 \n\n168. 232 \n136. 354 \n141. 060 \n148. 549 \n\n126. 300 \n137. 300 \n168. 000 \n192. 000 \n209. 000 \n\n210. 000 \n202. 000 \n256. 000 \n\n280. 000 \n268. 000 \n233. 000 \n\n148. 549 \n\n54. 657 \n\n39. 606 \n60. 313 \n64. 052 \n\n80. 583 \n87. 306 \n735. 473 \n\n67. 829 \n83. 881 \n78. 496 \n\n260. 333 \n\n76. 735 \n\n273. 052 \n\n290. 616 \n283. 561 \n391. 639 \n\n347. 922 \n351. 881 \n311. 496 \n337. 068 \n\n33 \n255 \n166 \n\n93 \n-\n-\n\n\fT A 8 I E \n\nII \n\nMCO \n\nProduct Ion \n\nOverrun \n\nTheoretlcol reduction \n\n(without carryover) \n\n(t< \n\n(tonnes) \n\n(tonnes) \n\nX \n\n| EfcU/100 ko \n\n+ \n\nT \n\nT \n\nA d j u s t ed \n\nn o rm price \n\nE C U / 1 00 kg \n\nSmall producers \n\n(ECU/100 ko) \n\nAid \n\nAdjue. price \n\n1997/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n979. 000 \n\n123. 909 \n\n9 \n\n| \n\n9. 842 \n\n87. 378 \n\n1999/99 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 199. 998 \n\n437. 998 \n\n20(30) | \n\n19. 204 \n\n78. 818 \n\n0 \n\n1999/90 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 099. 947 \n\n348. 947 \n\n24 \n\n| 23. 04S \n\n72. 979 \n\n9. 248 \n\n792. 000 \n\n991. 743 \n\n239. 743 \n\n18 \n\n| \n\n19. 338 \n\n90. 922 \n\n8. 038 \n\n83. 378 \n\n78,818 \n\n81. 221 \n\n88. 998 \n\n792. 000 \n\n999. 912) \n\n139. 912 \n\n10 \n\n| \n\n9,999 \n\n99. 274 \n\n8. 038<#> \n\n92,310 \n\n792. 000 \n\n1. 009. 939 \n\n299. 933 \n\nIS. 9 \n\n| \n\n19. 193 \n\n90. 793 \n\n4. 084<\u00bb> \n\n84,897 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n\u2022 \n\n(\u2022) Estimate \n\n\fI \u2022 w \n\n< \n\n\u20225 \nft \nkl \n\nJ \n\n5 \n\n4. Cv \n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nU\nC\nE\n\n0\n\nd\ni\nA\n\ng\nk\n\n0\n0\n1\n/\nu\nc\nE\n\n*\nc\nl\nr\np\n\nm\nr\no\nN\n\nm \u2022 \nc \ns \n*-\n\n* \n\nJ \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\u2022 \n3 \n\u2022J* \n< \n\n\"9 \u2022 \nX \n\n3 \n\n1 \n\n8 \u00a7 5 8 \n\n8 \n\ns \n\n1 \n\ni<* \n\n|\n\n|\n\n2\n2\n5\n\n2\n4\n8\n\n3\n8\n4\n\n4\n4\n4\n\n8\n0\n8. 5\n7\n8\n\n1\n6\n5. 3\n8\n2\n\n8\n8\n8. 9\n8\n1. 1\n\n9\n3\n8. 1\n9\n3\n\n7\n4\n5. 8\n9\n0. 1\n\n2\n2\n9. 7\n4\n3\n\n3\n9\n7. 1\n9\n9\n\n1\n8\n8. 1\n5\n3\n\n|\n\n]\n8\n7\n5\n[\n\n]\n2\n1\n9. 8\n8\n8\n[\n\n8\n9\n4. 1\n1\n3\n\n\u2022\u00bb \n<o \n\ntn \not \n\np\u00bb \nto \n\ns' s i \n\n\u00abo \nr* \n\ni \n\n\u00ab\u2014i \n\u00a9 \n\ns-\n\nCO \n\n1\n6\n7. 3\n\n0\n0\n2. 9\n1\n\n4\n8\n2. 7\n1\n\n5\n6\n9. 3\n2\n\n0\n1\n7. 6\n\n9\n5\n2. 0\n9\n\n0\n2\n8. 8\n7\n\n6\n3\n7. 8\n7\n\n5\n9\n8. 1\n7\n\n0\n5\n1. 9\n8\n\n8 8 8 8 8 \nin \n*o \n<o \n\nco \n\nen \n\n\u00a7 \n\n8 \ni \n\nz \n\n5 \n\n<M \n\n\u20220 \n\n2 \n\nOk \n\nS \n\n6\n6\n9\n1\n/\n7\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n\nj\n\n9\n8\n9\n1\n/\n8\n8\n9\n1\n\n|\n\n0\n9\n9\n1\n/\n9\n8\n9\n1\n\n1\n9\n9\n1\n/\n0\n9\n9\n1\n\n2\n9\n9\n1\n/\n1\n9\n9\n1\n\n|\n\ni\n\nOk \n\n-J I \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\fw \n\nOk so * \n* CO \n8 fc 8' 8 R \n\nHIM \n2 P* *> \u2022 p\u00bb \n8 8 88 8 \n\nCM SO <* \n\n* \n\nCO \n\nP 8 8* 8 8 \n\nAs \n\nS 3 \u00a7 \u00a7\u00a7 \n\u00a7 2 \u00a7 gS \n\n5 9 S 8 8 \n\nCO p* CO co w \n\n8 8 n n n \n\n8 8 3 8 :: \n\u00ab \nN M N \u00ab \n\ns s su \ni*) io to n \n\nM \n\n^ \n\u2022C \n\n8s \n\nu \nki \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nO en p* co ok \n\u2022 \n\u2022 \nJo S S \" ** \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n3 S S \u00a73 \n2 S 8 ? 8 \n\n\u00ab- CM Ok CO SO \n\nCM kf> \u2022 \n\u2022 \nfi p* r\u00bb \n\u00ab \nCM so CM K \n\nK 8S \n\nQ CM Ok P. Q \na \nn N a M \n\u00ab\u00bb K so co *-\n\nin <o 51 \n\n\u00b0\u00ab w \"l ** **\". \u2022^ SO *0 SO CM \n\n8 2 2 2 8 \n\u00bbn so ok CM S \n\u00a3 8 8 8 5 \n\n2SL5 \u00a73 \n8 \u00a72 88 \n\n\u2022- CM CM \u2022- CM \n\nm p\u00bb co \u00abe> co \np* e> CM \nco so CM so \n\nS Q \n3 5 P* so \n\nCM O \n\n8 \n\n\u2022*- \u00ab 2 \n00 CO 80 \nOk Ok O* \n\n\u00ab N q s \no \nco co co eo ok \nft \nO O O O \n\n\f- 49 -\n\nr * g LC y \n\nDeliveries of cotton fibres (tonnes) \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIM \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\nflorid \n\nIntra EC-10 \n\nExtra EC-10 \n\ntor Id \n\n1. 518 \n1. 130 \n5. 617 \n7. 532 \n427 \n\n7. 765 \n16. 407 \n17. 288 \n27. 431 \n37. 770 \n\n9. 283 \n17. 537 \n22. 905 \n34. 963 \n38. 197 \n\n8. 633 \n24. 143 \n\n1. 463 \n8. 325 \n\n10. 096 \n32. 463 \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nWorld \n\nIntra EC-12 \n\nExtra EC-12 \n\nlorld \n\n14. 956 \n44. 999 \n4. 355 \n41. 821 \n19. 468 \n\n11. 927 \n43. 594 \n36. 793 \n66. 742 \n49. 663 \n\n26. 883 \n88. 593 \n41. 448 \n108. 563 \n69. 150 \n\n18. 807 \n19. 240 \n18. 460 \n42. 474 \n14. 534 \n\n5. 895 \n7. 742 \n8. 736. 11. 702 \n7. 579 \n\n24. 702 \n26. 982 \n27. 222 \n54. 176 \n22. 647 \n\n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n\n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\nSource \n\n: EUROSTAT-COMEXT \n\n\f- 50 -\n\nT A B L g \n\nVI \n\nEC self-sufficiency rate in cotton fibres \n\nProduction \n\nExports \n\nImports \n\nApparent \nconsumption \n\nSelf-\nsuffi \nciency \nrate \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\nt \n\n1987 \n\n280. 195 \n\n56. 742 \n\n1. 201. 837 \n\n1. 425. 290 \n\n1988 \n\n380. 757 \n\n55. 593 \n\n1. 017. 376 \n\n1. 342. 540 \n\n1989 \n\n351. 535 \n\n89. 910 \n\n1. 028. 266 \n\n1. 289. 891 \n\n1990 \n\n317. 374 \n\n72. 130 \n\n1. 005. 528 \n\n1. 250. 772 \n\n% \n\n20 \n\n28 \n\n27 \n\n25 \n\n9 \n\n332. 465 \n\n68. 594 \n\n1. 063. 252 \n\n1. 327. 123 \n\n25 \n\nSource : EC Commission. DG VI \n\n\f- 51 -\n\nT A B LE \n\nV II \n\nEstimated ond octuol Cc\u2014unlty unglnnod cotton production \n\nProduction (t) \n\nReduction X \n\nEattatatod \n\nActual \n\nOlfforonco \n\nActual \n\nThoorotlcol \n\n828. 850 \n\n875. 608 \n\n+ 46. 758 \n\n1. 086. 902 \n\n1. 189. 866 \n\n\u00abf 102. 964 \n\n1. 009. 119 \n\n1. 098. 547 \n\n1. 035. 279 \n\n991. 743 \n\n+ 89. 428 \n\n- 66. 508 \n\n888. 912 \n\n(1) \n\n850. 000 \n\n(1) - 38. 912 \n\n6 \n\n20 \n\n18 \n\n25 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n20 \n\n24 \n\n16 \n\n7 \n\n15. 2 \n\n15. 2 \n\n1987/88 \n\n1988/89 \n\n1989/90 \n\n1990/91 \n\n1991/92 \n\n0 \n\n(1) E\u00bbtlmot\u00ab \n\n\f- 52 -\n\nT A B L E V I I I \n\nTotal quality and quantity eligible for aid \n\nGREECE \n\nSPAIN \n\n1982/83 \n1983/84 \n1984/85 \n1985/86 \n1986/87 \n1987/88 \n1988/89 \n1989/90 \n1990/91 \n\naverage 1986/87-1990/91 \n\n1. 055 \n1. 064 \n1,064 \n1. 066 \n1. 064 \n1,051 \n1,075 \n1,070 \n1. 071 \n1,066 \n\n1,080 \n1,085 \n1,103 \n1,113 \n1. 115 \n1,099 \n\n\f- 53 -\n\nANNEX II \n\nCommission report to the Council \non the situation with regard to the production \nand marketing of certain varieties of. tobacco \n\n1. Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 of 21 April 1970 on \nthe common organization of the market In raw tobacco lays down that \nwhere, for a variety or a group of varieties, the quantities taken over \nby the Intervention agencies exceed, or seem likely to exceed, a stated \npercentage of the production for two successive crops, and In any case a \nstated quantity (see the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1469/70), the \nCommission is to submit to the Council a report and proposals for \nmeasures to bring about a better balance between production and demand \nand to reduce stocks and. If necessary, for measures to enable a \nreasonable standard of living to be maintained for producers. Pursuant \nto paragraph 2 of the same Article, the measures In question are to be \nimplemented when It is apparent that for a given single crop the \nextension of cultivated areas Is the main cause of the percentages \nand/or quantities being exceeded. 2. The information available regarding Intervention stocks relates to the \n1988 and 1989 crops and points to large quantities being offered for \nintervention (see Annex I). For three varieties the quantities presented for Intervention exceeded \nthe quantity for a single crop as referred to in Article 13 and for ten \nvarieties the quantities presented for intervention exceed the quantity \nstated for two successive crops (1988 and 1989) as referred to In \nArticle 13. Among the varieties concerned, three have already been the subject of \nArticle 13 measures. These are the varieties hybrids of Badischer \nGeuder the inter, Tsebelia and Mavra. For these three varieties, the quantities presented for intervention for \none or two years were massive (the limit being exceeded by 600X to \n1260%), and the MGQs were also vastly exceeded (by up to 1000%). - 54 -\n\n3. Production of the variety Badlscher Geudertheimer In Italy In 1989 \ntotalled 85 321 tonnes, compared with an MGQ of 7 700 tonnes. This \nsituation led the Council to take four measures concerning this variety. (a) For the 1989 crop, on the basis of the special measures provided \nfor in Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 727/70 the \nlowering of the intervention price for variety No 1 (Badlscher \nGeudertheimer and hybrids thereof) to 75% of the norm price \n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1330/90 of 14 May 1990). (b) For the 1990 crop the reclassification of variety No 1 Badlscher \n\nGeudertheimer grown in Italy under variety 11 with the designation \nhybrids of Badlscher Geudertheimer, along with, among others, the \nvariety Forchheimer Havanna, leading to a 25% cut in the premium \nand a 35% cut In the Intervention price (Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 1331/90 of 14 May 1990). (c) From the 1990 crop the reduction of the percentage of the \n\nproduction of tobacco presented for intervention triggering the \nmeasures provided for In Article 13(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 727/70 from 115 to 110% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1332/90 of \n14 May 1990). (d) For the 1991 crop an additional 13% cut in the prices and premiums \n\n(Council Regulation (EEC) No 138/91 of 13 June 1991). 4. The Increase In the quantities of varieties Nos 23 Tsebelia and 24 Mavra \noffered for intervention led the Council in 1989 to cut the intervention \nprice to 75% of the norm price pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation \n(EEC) No 727/70 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1253/89). For the 1990 \ncrop the Council also reduced the level of prices and premiums for these \ntwo varieties by 15% (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90), followed by \n13% for the 1991 crop (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91). 5. For the variety Badlscher Bur ley (zone B) the ceiling was exceeded for \nthe 1988 crop, while the crop area increased significantly. Since then \nthe crop areas appear to be stabilizing (despite a substantial increase \nin 1990), but production in 1990 and estimated production In 1991 show a \nsteep rise (169% up on 1988). * \n\n6. The other nine varieties come under the category sun-cured, also known \n\nas oriental varieties. The development in the areas cultivated in 1988 \nand 1989 Is close to the average, and the level of production remains \nbelow the MGOs except in the case of the Italian oriental varieties, \nwhich exceeded the MGQ by 9% in 1989 only. For the 1988 and 1989 crops \nthe reason for the increase in intervention is not therefore the trend \nin production but the trend in demand for these varieties. - 55 -\n\nThese varieties have, to a greater or lesser degree, specific aromatic \ncharacteristics which are sought for the manufacture of American blends. A large percentage of this tobacco thus finds an outlet on the world \nmarket and is very sensitive to trends in these outlets. The increase in the quantities of oriental tobacco from the 1988 and \n1989 crops entering intervention can thus be attributed to a substantial \ndecrease in exports In 1989, linked with a surplus of world stocks. It \nmay also be the case that certain speculative practices have reinforced \nthis situation. 7. The current market situation with regard to the 1990 and 1991 crops can \nbe regarded as relatively satisfactory. Having regard to greater demand \non the world market, prices have Improved and, according to the \ninformation supplied by the Member States, the quantities of tobacco \nfrom the 1990 crop entering Intervention are very small. It may \ntherefore be assumed that in general the risk of high Intervention \nbuying is limited and would not require special measures. Nonetheless, \nas regards the three problem varieties mentioned In point 3, the \nintervention potential remains high, in view of the limited demand on \nthe market. 8. In October 1991 the Commission put three proposals for Regulations to \n\nthe Council, the first on the common organization of the market in raw \ntobacco, the second fixing the premiums and quotas, and the third \nconcerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco \nsector. However, as the adoption of this reform by Council has been delayed, the \nexisting regulations will remain in force for the 1992 crops. It is \ntherefore proposed to roll-over, for the 1992 crop, the special measures \ntaken for the varieties No 11 Forchheimer Havanna, Hybrids of Badischer \nGeudertheimer, etc. No 23 Tsebelia and No 24 Mavra. - 56 -\n\nA N N EX \n\nL \n\nVariety \n\nX by which Interven \ntion quantities \npursuant to Article \n13 are exceeded \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\nPercentage change \nIn crop \narea \n\n1988 \n1987 \n\n1989 \n1988 \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022 \n\n1. 260. 8 \n\n-\n\n4 259. 0 \n\n4 15. 1 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n925. 8 \n\n900. 5 \n\n- \n\n1. 0 \n\n- 0. 8 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n1102. 0 \n\n602. 5 \n\n- \n\n2. 5 \n\n- 6. 8 \n\nNo 2 Badlsher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n159. 2 \n\n-\n\n4 92. 0 \n\n4 0. 4 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n-\n\n539. 8 \n\n- \n\n5. 0 \n\n- 10. 0 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n149. 7 \n\n287. 5 \n\n\u2022 15. 0 \n\n- 4. 8 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n126. 5 \n\n77. 7 \n\n+ 11. 6 \n\n- 12. 1 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovlna \n\n97. 2 \n\n143. 7 \n\n- 37. 4 \n\n- 25. 0 \n\nNo 17 Basaa \n\n43. 9 \n\n46. 3 \n\n- \n\n5. 8 \n\n4 12. 4 \n\nNo 18 Katerlnl \n\n90. 0 \n\n20. 4 \n\n- \n\n5. 7 \n\n4 4. 0 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 326. 4 \n\n249. 5 \n\n- 23. 5 \n\n4 36. 3 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 25. 0 \n\n393. 6 \n\n- 31 \n\n- 27. 3 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoiyrodata \n\n477. 9 \n\n561. 4 \n\n- 17 \n\n- 14. 0 \n\nFron the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelaer (Zone B) Is reclassified under \nvariety No 11(e) hybrids of Badlscher Guederthelier. - 57 -\n\nM H EX \n\nLL \n\nVariety \n\nProduction \n(tonnes) \n\n1988 \n\n1989 \n\n1990 \n\n1991 (\u2022) \n\nNo 1 Badlscher Geuderthelaer \n\nZone B \u2022\u2022 \nForchheleer Havanna \n\n67. 407 \n6. 504 \n\n85. 321 \n3. 954 \n\n45. 222 \n25. 395 \n\n46. 000 \n25. 000 \n\nNo 23 Tsebella \n\n30. 084 \n\n30. 060 \n\n21. 590 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 24 Mavra \n\n13. 267 \n\n13. 176 \n\n9. 163 \n\n10. 000 \n\nNo 2 Bad 1sher Bur ley \n\nZone B \n\n3. 973 \n\n3. 890 \n\n5. 443 \n\n5. 500 \n\nNo 21 Myrodata \n\n5. 885 \n\n6. 055 \n\n4. 618 \n\n5. 000 \n\nNo 13 Xanthl Yaka \n\n8. 875 \n\n10. 368 \n\n8. 408 \n\n8. 500 \n\nNo 14 Perustlza \n\n8. 815 \n\n9. 263 \n\n8. 635 \n\n8. 600 \n\nNo 15 Erzegovina \n\n2. 164 \n\n2. 217 \n\n1. 978 \n\n1. 900 \n\nNo 17 Basia \n\n24. 410 \n\n23. 975 \n\n20. 304 \n\n26. 000 \n\nNo 18 Katerinl \n\n19. 226 \n\n19. 256 \n\n18. 950 \n\n21. 000 \n\nNo 19 Kaba Koulak CI. 23. 709 \n\n17. 373 \n\n13. 725 \n\n13. 000 \n\nNo 20 Kaba Koulak N-CI. 3. 362 \n\n2. 500 \n\n1. 668 \n\n1. 500 \n\nNo 22 Zlchnoayrodata \n\n774 \n\n700 \n\n397 \n\n400 \n\n\u2022 Estimate. \u2022* \n\nFroa the 1990 harvest onwards variety No 1, Badlscher Guederthelner (Zone B ), Is reclassified \nunder variety No 11(e). hybrids of Badlscher Geudertheiier. - 58 -\n\nPortugal \n\nH* 1 \n\nPrlco propoaols In ecus for Indlvlduot oqrlcutturol products \n\n13. 2. 1992 \n\nProduct and typo of prlco or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1 \n\nCommon wheat \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target prlco \n- Intervention prlco breadmaklng wheot (2) \n- (Intervention price feed wheat) \n\nBarley \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\npr \n\nce \n\nMaize \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce \n\nSorghum \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nIce \n\n1 \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nAmounts \necus/t \n\nX change \n\nAmounts \nIn eeus/t \n\n(D \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n\n1991/92 \n\nn eeus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\nAmounts \n91/92 \n\nn ocus/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n9 (4) \n\n10(4) \n\n11 \n\nI -\n\n233,26 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 41 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233,26 \n168,55 \n160,13 \n\n232,76 \n168. 55 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0,21 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n233. 26 \n210. 80 \n200. 26 \n\n232. 76 \n206,11 \n195. 80 \n\n- 0,21 \n- 2. 22 \n- 2,22 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\nI - 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0,24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n168. 55 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n168. 55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212,33 \n168,55 \n\n211,83 \n168. 55 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0. 00 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160,13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160,13 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n1 Rye \n1 \n1 \n\n- Torget price \n- Intervention \n\nPr \n\nce (3) \n\nDurum wheat \n\n- Target price \n- Intervention price \n- Aid (ecue/ha) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 45 \n0,00 \n\n211. 83 \n160. :3 \n\n0,24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211. 83 \n160. 13 \n\n- 0. 24 \n0,00 \n\n212. 33 \n160. 13 \n\n211,83 \n160. 13 \n\n277. 21 \n227. 70 \n161. 88 \n\n-3. 54 \n- 3,50 \n4 6. 28 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181. 88 \n\n0,18 \n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n277,21 \n216. 48 \n148. 34 \n\n276,71 \n227. 70 \n181,88 \n\n- 0. 18 \n4 5. 18 \n4 24. 29 \n\n277. 21 \n227,70 \n181. 88 \n\n276. 71 \n227,70 \n181,88 \n\nRice \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Target price - hueked rice \n- Intervention price - paddy rice \n\n546. 13 \n313. 65 \n\n0,00 \n0,00 \n\n545. 52 \n313. 65 \n\n0,11 \n0. 00 \n\n546. 13 \n313,65 \n\n545,52 \n313. 65 \n\n- 0. 11 \n0. 00 \n\n548. 13 \n338. 39 \n\n545. 52 \n332,21 \n\n0. 24 \n0. 00 \n\n0. 18 \n0. 00 \n0,00 \n\n0,11 \n1,83 \n\nSugar \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 \n\n- Basic price for sugar beet \n- Intervention price for white sugar (\u2022) \n\n40. 00 I \n53. 01 I \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n40,00 \n53,01 \n\n0. 00 \n0. 00 \n\n46. 84 \n61. 29 \n\n48. 08 \n59,57 \n\n1. 8 \n2. 8 \n\n42. 83 \n53,35 \n\n41,57 \n54. 22 \n\n- 2. 9 \n4 1. 6 \n\n(\u2022) ecus/q. (1) Without the ogrlmonetary effect. (2) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco was Increased by 3. 37 ocus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECO 3,27 ocut/t It propotod for 1992/93 (^3. 00X). (3) For the 1991/92 marketing yeor. this prlco wot Incroasod by 4,22 ecus/t for a higher quality. A premium of ECU 4,09 ocus/t It propotod for 1992/W (-3X). (4) Portuguese producers receive special assistance to grow common wheat, barley, maize, sorghum and rye, (R. 3653/90). N* 2 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 59 -\n\nProduct and type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n, \ni \n\u2022 \n! Olive oil \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\n1 \n\n- Production target price \n- Intervention price \n- Representotive market price \n-Production aid \n-Consumption aid \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nI \nI \nI \nI Amounts I X \nI change \nI ecus/t \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \n1. 11. 92-31. 10. 93 I \nI 3. 220. 1 I \nI 2. 158,7 I \nI 1. 972,8 I \n0 I \n708. 3 I \nI \n539. 0 I - 11,5 I \nI \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI \nI \nII \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nI \nI \n\nSpain \n\nI \nI \n\nPortugal \n\nI \nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n4 \n\n5 \n\nI Amounts In ocut/t I X \n\nI Amounts In ocus/t I X \n\nI ecus/t \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\nI Amounts I X \nI change \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n1 \n1 \nI \nI \n0 I 3. 220,1 I \n0. 0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220,1 I \n0 I 2. 038,7 I - 5,6 I 1. 853. 1 I 1. 846,3 I - 0,4 I 2. 096. 5 I 1. 999. 5 I \n- I \n526,1 I \n482,5 I - 1,4 I \n\nI 1991/92 I 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nt \n1 \nI \n0,0 I 3. 220. 1 I 3. 220. 1 I \n\nI \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n0,00 I \n- 4 ,6 I \n- I \n23,7 I \n\n3,7 I 1. 932. 8 I - 2,0 I \n16. 9 I \n828. 3 I \n459,0 I - 14,8 I \n\n- I \n425,3 I \n494,2 I \n\n- I \n551,0 I \n457,5 I \n\n- I \n458. 5 I \n456. 7 I \n\n- I \n20,1 I \n0,2 I \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n7 \n\n9 \n\n6 \n\n8 \n\nI \n\nI Dried fodder - Guide prlce(l) \n,_ \nI Peas and field beans \n- Activating price \nI \n- Cuide price \nI \nI \n- Minimum price - peas \nI \nl_ \nI Lupins \nI \nI \n\n-Activating price \n-Minimum price \n\n- field beans \n\n1. 5. 92-30. 4. 93 I \n\n| \n1. 7. 92-<J0. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \nI \n| \n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\nI \n178. 61 I \n1 \n| \nI \nI \n440. 1 I \n- 1. 5 I \n290. 3 I - 1. 5 I \n253,4 f - 1,5 I \n234,7 I - 1. 5 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I - 1. 5 I \n284. 2 I - 1. 5 I \n\n1 \nI \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n| Flax \nI \nI \n\n- G u i de price (seed) \n-Fixed-rote aid (fibre) (per ha) \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \nI \nI 374. 36 I \n\nI \n544,90 I - 1. 5 I \n\nI \n544. 90 I \nI 374,36 I \n\n0 \n\nI \n\n- Fixed-rate old (per ho) \n- A id (seed) \n\n| Hemp \nI \n1 \nI \nI Silkworms \nI \n\n- A id per box \n\n1. 8. 92-31. 7. 93 I \n\nI \nI \n1 \nI 339,42 I \nI 339. 42 I \nI 245,90 I - 1,5 I 245,90 I \nj \n| \nI \n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \n111. 81 I \nI \n\n| \nI \n111. 81 I \n\nI \nI \nI \n\n- \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284,2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290,3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423,4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n507. 30 I \n318. 87 I \n\nI \n516. 70 I \n374. 36 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n| \nI \n0 1 \n\nI \n289. 16 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \nI \nI \n111. 81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\n178,61 I \n1 \nI \n440. 1 I \n290. 3 I \n253,4 I \n234,7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\n178. 61 I \n1 \nI \n440,1 I \n290. 3 I \n253. 4 I \n234. 7 I \n1 \nI \n423. 4 I \n284. 2 I \n\nI \n\nI \n1. 9 I 544,90 I 544,90 I \n374,36 I \n17,4 I 318. 87 I \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n17,4 I 289. 16 I \n0 I 245,90 I \nI \nI \n95. 80 1 \n\nI \nI \n16,7 1 \n\nI \n339,42 I \n245. 90 I \n\\ \nI \n111,81 I \n\n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n1 \nI \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n\n0 I \n17,4 I \n\nI \n17. 4 I \n0 I \n\n* \nI \n16. 7 1 \n\n(1) A 20X reduction in aid over 2 years Is proposed, using a coefficient of 90 X In 1991/92 and 80 X In 1992/93. Product ond type of price or amount \n\n(Period of application) \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n1. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 \n\nCotton \n\n- Guide price \n- Minimum price \n\nMilk \n\n- Target price \n\nButter \n\n- Intervention price \n\nSkimmed milk powder \n\n- Intervention price \n\nCrana padano cheese 30-60 days \n\n- Intervention price \nGrona pedono cheese 6 months \n- Intervention price \n\nParmlgIano-ReggIano cheese 6 months \n\n- Intervention price \n\nAmounts I X \necus/t \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\nI chonge \n1 \nI \n1 \nI \n958. 6 I \n910. 7 I \n\nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796,7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nK r i ce p r o p o s en \n\nin ecus tor \n\nI n d l v i d u ol a q n c ui t u r ol products \n\n- 00 -\n\n1991/92 \nDecltlons \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\nPortugal \n\nAmounts I X \n\nocus/t I chonge \n\nAmounts \n1991/92 \n\nn ocut/t \n1992/93 \n\nX \nchange \n\n958. 6 \n910. 7 \n\n1. 027. 9 \n976. 5 \n\n7. 23(0 \n7. 23(0 \n\n268. 1 \n\n288. 1 \n\n0 \n\n3. 024. 9 \n\n2. 927. 8 \n\n- 3. 2 \n\n2. 028. 7 \n\n1. 724,3 \n\n- 14,9 \n\n10 \n\nI X \n\nAmounts In \nI ocus/t \n1991/92 I \nI 1992/93 I change \n1 \nI \nI 11 \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n958. 6 I \nI 1. 027. 9 I 7. 23(*) \n910. 7 I \n976,5 I 7,23(*) \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \nI \n268. 1 I \n268. 1 I \nI \nI \n| \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \nI \nI \n2. 100. 0(1)1 \n! 2. 070. 0 I -1. 4 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n1 \nI \nI \nI \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n1 \nI \n1. 027. 9 I 7,23(\u00ab0 \n976. 5 I 7. 23(\u00bb) \n\n1 \nI \n268,1 I \nI \n2. 927. 8 I \nI \n1. 724. 3 I \nI \n3. 796. 7 I \nI \n4. 704. 3 I \nI \n5. 192. 1 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Beef/veal \nI - Guide price for odult bovine onlmalt (2) \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. A \nI - Intervention price quality R 3 cat. C \n\n2. 4. 92-31. 3. 93 I \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 1 \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nI \n2. 000 I \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\n1 \n2. 000 1 \n3. 430 I \n3. 430 I \n\nI Sheepmeat \nI - Boslc price (carcase weight) \n\n7. 1. 92- 6. 1. 93 1 \" \n\nI \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\nI \nt \nI 4. 229,5 I \n\n- 2 \n\nI \n\nI \n0 I 4. 229,5 I 4. 229. 5 i \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n0 I 4. 229. 5 I 4. 229. 5 I \n\n1992 \n\n1993 \n\nI Plgmeat \nI - Basic price (carcase weight) \n\n1. 7. 92-30. 6. 93 I \nI \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \n0 I \n\nI \n1. 897 I \n\nI \ni \n\n1. 897 \n\n(*) Technical adjustment taking account of the Improvement In the standard quolity. (1) For the Azoree. the Intervention price for skimmed milk powder Is ECU 3/100 kg less than the price Indicated, which It applicable on the mainland. (2) Price per tonne (IIvewelght). 5 \n\n\fN\u00ab 4 \n\nPrice proposols In ecus for Indlvlduol oqrlculturol products \n\n- 61 -\n\nProduct ond type of price or amount \n\n1991/92 \nDecisions \n\nProposals \n1992/93 \n\nSpain \n\n0) \n\nPortugal (2) \n\n(Period of application) \n\n(3) \n\nI Amounts \nI ecus/t \n\ni \nI Amounts I X \nI ecus/t \nI \n12 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n16. 11. 92-28. 2. 93 I \nI \n1. 12. 92-31. 5. 93 \n1. 6. 92-41. 7. 93 \nI \n1. 7. 92-31. 10. 92 \nI \n1. 12. 92-15. 2. 93 \nI \n16. 10. 92-15. 1. 93 \nI \n1. 6. 92-31. 8. 92 \nI \n\n5. 92-30. 4. 93 \n6. 92-30. 11. 92 \n6. 92-30. 9. 92 \n6. 92-31. 5. 93 \n7. 92-30. 4. 93 \n8. 92-20. 11. 92 \n8. 92-31. 5. 93 \n\n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- \n- I) \n- \n- \n\nI change \n1 \n13 \n1 \nI \nI \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \nI) \n\n1 \n11 \n1 \n1 \n1, \n1 \n1, \n\nI) \nI) \n\n0 \n0 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 \n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n0 \n\n(3) \n\n% \nchangs \n\nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nI 1991/92 \n\u2022I \nI \n\n6 \n\n(3) \n\n* \nchange \n\n\u2022I \n\u2014 \nI Amounts In ecus/t \n1992/93 \nt 1991/92. | \nI \n\n10 \n\n9 \n\n4 5. 0 I \n4 13. 8 I \n4 1. 0 I \n4 9,7 I \n4 7. 9 I \n0 I \n4 7,5 I \n4 5. 6 I \n4 1,8 I \n4 8. 1 I \n4 16. 0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\nFruits and vegetables - Basic price \n\n- Caul If lowers \n- Tomatoes \n- Pooches \n- Lemons \n- Pears \n- Tab I* grapes \n- Apples \n- Mandarins \n- Sweet oronges \n- Apricots \n- Aubergines \n- Clementines \n- Satsumas \n- Nectarines \n\n(1) Including price alignment (3rd alignment) \n(2) Including price alignment (2nd alignment) \n(J) Without the effect of intervention thresholds. Table wine (D \n\n1. 9. 92-31. 8. 93 \n\n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n- Guide price Type \n\nI \n11 \nIII \nI \nII \n\nGuide price Type A III \n\n3. 21 \n3. 21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69,48 \n79. 35 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n3,21 \n3. 21 \n52,14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n0 1 \n\n3. 01 1 \n3. 01 1 \n48. 81 1 \n3. 01 I \n65. 04 1 \n74,28 1 \n\n3. 21 1 \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n69. 48 1 \n79,35 1 \n\n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 64 1 \n4 6. 82 1 \n4 6. 64 I \n4 6,83 1 \n4 6. 83 1 \n\n3. 21 t \n3. 21 1 \n52. 14 1 \n3. 21 1 \n89. 48 1 \n79. 35 1 \n\n3. 21 \n3,21 \n52. 14 \n3. 21 \n69. 48 \n79. 35 \n\n(1) R I, R II and A I expressed In ocus/X/hl. R III, A II and A III expressed In ecus/hi. For Portugal Including price alignment (1st alignment) carried out in 1991/92. I * \nI change \n\n(3) \n\nI \n\n11 \n\n| \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\ni \n\n4 3,4 \n4 5. 5 \n\n0 I \n\n4 9. 0 I \n4 8. 6 \n4 5. 4 \n4 5. 0 \n\n0 1 \n4 4. 5 I \n4 6. 3 I \n4 5,8 I \n\n0 I \n0 I \n0 I \n\n^ \n\n\fN\u00bb 5 \n\n- 62 -\n\nPrice proposols In ocut for Indlvlduol oqrIcultureI productt \n\nProduct, group ond variety \n\nI Harvott 1991 - Docttlont I Harvott 1992 - Propotolt \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nPrlee/premlum/X change \n\ncompared with 1990 \n\n2 \n\n1 \n\nI \n\nI \n\n1 \n\ncompared with 1991 \n\n3 \n\nPrIee/prem tum/X chango \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\nI Tobacco \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \n\nI \n\n- 6X odjuttable I OX; oxeopt whore tho \n\nI \nI) Prtco \nI) Premium - 6X odjuttobio I proportion of lowor \nI \nI \nI \n\nI qualities purehatod by \n1 o processor exceodt \nI o specified maximum. I \n\nI \n\n' \nI \n| \nI \nI \nI \n\n^ N \n\n\f- \u2022 3-\n\nToblo 2 \n\nAC R I M O N E T A RY \n\nf R O M f A ll \n\n- P R I CI > A C U tf \n\n1 1 1 2 / 13 \n\nApplicable ot the beginning of tha '992/93 \n\nIgn \n\nMEMBER STATES \n\nGREEN \n\nPREVIOUS SITUATION \n\nProduct Craup(l) \n\nCENTRAL \n\nGREEN \n\nRATES(2) \n( e c u -,. nc) \n\nRATES \n( e c u -. n c) \n\nREAL \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nDISMM4T-\nLEMENT \n\nGREEN \nRATES \n(ecu\u00bb. nc) \n\nSOT SITUATION \nREAL \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nAPPLIED \n\u2022JAPS \n( p o i n t s) \n\nEPPECT \nON \nPRICES \n\nRELG I U M A U O M B O U RB \n\n48. 9063 \n\nA ll products \n\n46. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n1. 97909 \n\n7. 89563 \n\n2. 38418 \n\nt. 97909 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n7. 80963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n2. 36416 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 878776 \n\nOENMARK \n\nPRANCE \n\nCERMANY \n\nIRELAND \n\nITALY \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nNETHERLANDS \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\nPORTUGAL \n\n1761. 45 \n\n2. 85256 \n\n202. 670 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n2. 69256 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n0 \n\n48. 5963 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n8. 97980 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n7. 80563 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 39418 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 878776 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n1761. 49 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\n2. 89296 \n\n0. 000 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 000 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n208. 676 \n\n2. 878 \n\n1. * \n\n- 1. 3 78 \n\n209. 796 \n\n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 3 99 \n\nUNITED KINGDOM \n\n0. 815203 \n\nA ll p r o d u c ts \n\n0. 795423 \n\n- 2. 4 87 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n0. 907 \n\n0. 803196 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 972 \n\n147. 965 \n\n270. 197 \n\nS P A IN \nS M (, milk \nCereals, sugar \nOllva o i l. \u00bb l n e. drlod fodder. f l e x. hemp, sllkeorme \n\nCotton, groin legume* \nSheeomeat. other crop prod. Others \n\nGREECE \nShsspmsot. esroals. sugar. v i n e, \u00a9live o i l, \ntobacco. f i s h i ng p r o d. , structure \n\nTomatoes, cucumbers. courgettes, aubergines \n\nPoultry ( 3) \nCroln legumes ( 3) \nOther crop products ( 3) \nOthers ( 3) \n\n154. 136 \n153. 498 \n\n149. 813 \n151. 660 \n150. 828 \n151. 660 \n\n4. 251 \n3. 852 \n\n1. 487 \n2. 687 \n2. 150 \n2. 687 \n\n2. 8 \n2. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 91 \n- 2. 3 92 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 1 87 \n- 0. 6 50 \n- 1. 1 67 \n\n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n149. 813 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n149. 832 \n\n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n\n1. 467 \n1. 500 \n1. 900 \n1. 500 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n- 2. 7 94 \n- 2. 3 88 \n\n0. 000 \n- 1. 2 09 \n- 0. 6 60 \n- 1. 2 05 \n\n292. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 5. 7 \n\n5. 670 \n\nr 266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n\n0. 0 \n\n5. 566 \n\n297. 188 \n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 0. 0 96 \n- 5. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 6. 0 96 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 3. 3 \n\n3. 596 \n3. 849 \n3. 270 \n3. 996 \n3. 270 \n\n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n266. 204 \n\n- 1. 9 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n- 1. 5 00 \n\n3. 506 \n3. 788 \n3. 222 \n3. 506 \n3. 222 \n\n0. 0 \n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n(1) Except plcrrot (application of Article 6a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1676/05). (2) Switch-over coefficient - 1. 145109 - Creen market rate for floating currencies; \u00bbeek of reference: 29. 1. 92 \u2014 5. 2. 92. (3) The pocket price dismantlement has to be added to the automatic dismantlement taking effect ot the beginning of the 1992^3 campaign: \n\nPoultry \nCraln legumes \nOther crop products \nOthers \n\n292. 121 \n292. 121 \n252. 121 \n252. 121 \n\n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n- 7. 1 70 \n\n- 2. 2 \n\n- 9. 7 \n- 9. 7 \n\n1. 825 \n2. 400 \n2. 112 \n2. 400 \n\n256. 467 \n257. 895 \n257. 188 \n257. 895 \n\n- 9. 3 45 \n- 4. 7 70 \n- 5. 0 58 \n- 4. 7 70 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 3. 6 \n- 3. 3 \n\n1. 732 \n2. 290 \n2. 010 \n2. 290 \n\n\f- 64 -\n\nTflMe 3 \n\nEffect of Commission proposals on support prices for \nagricultural products expressed in ecus and in \n\nnational currency \n\nX change in prices (1)(2) \n\nIn ecus \n\nin national currency \n\nBelgium \n\nDenmark \n\nGermany \n\nGreece (4) \n\nSpain (5) \n\nFrance \n\nIreland \n\nItaly \n\nLuxembourg \n\nNetherlands \n\nPortugal (5) \n\nUnited Kingdom \n\nEUR 12 (5) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n1. 2 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 1 \n\n(3) \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n6. 1 \n\n- 0. 4 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n0. 0 \n\n- 1. 0 \n\n1'. O \n\n0. 3 \n\n(*) \n(1) \n\n(2) \n\n(3) \n\n(4) \n(5) \n\nExcluding Impact of stabilizers \nPercentage variation between proposed support prices for \n1992/93 and the support prices for 1991/92 \nSupport price (intervention or equivalent), weighted \naccording to the share of the various products in the \nvalue of agricultural production covered by common prices \nCommon prices in ecus, converted at green rates in this \nproposal. For the currencies not respecting the narrow \nband in the EMS calculations were done using the rates of \nthe week ending on 5. 2. 92 \nIncluding effect of automatic dismantlement \nIncluding effect of alignment of Spanish and Portuguese \nprices on common prices under accession arrangements \n\n\f- 09 -\n\nToble 4 - Stabilisers end production thresholds (without 00*) \n\nOuotes or MCO \napplicable \n\nMarket situation \n\nOverrun \n\n1991/92 \n\nCereols \n\nMCO : 160 million t \n\nSugar \n(white \nsugar eq. ) \n\nOuota A : 11. 187 m t \nQuota 8 : 2. 488 m t \n\nEstlmoted production: \n169 \u00ablII Ion t \n(+11. 6 Million t \n5 new LSnder) \n\nProduction (Including \ncarryovers) In m t \nOuota A : 10. 970 \nOuota 8 i 2. 412 \nSugar C : 2. 158 \n: 15. 335 \nTotal \n\nIsoglu-\ncose \n\nOuoto A : 240. 743 t \nQuota 0 : 90. 342 t \n\nEstimated production \nwithin quotas \n\nRape \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 4. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 6. 376. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugol \n\n: 12. 900 t \n1,300 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \u2014 \n\n: 21. 000 \n\nSunflower \n\nMCO \nEUR-10 : 2. 000. 000 t \n\nEstimated production: \nEUR-10 : 2,966. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 411. 800 t \n90. 000 t \n\nSpain \nPortugal : \n\n: 1. 036. 000t \n39. 000t \n\nSoya \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 1. 300. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \n1. 947. 000 \n\noverrun t million t: \ncut In price for 92/92 of 3% \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 41. 7% re \nsulting in o reduction of \nECU 9. 06/100 kg (- 20. SX) \nIn the target price \nSpain : ECU - 6. 78/100kg In \nthe target price (-16. 2%) \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nEUR-10 : overrun of 48. 3 X \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 18. 43/100 kg (-32. IX) In \nthe target price \nSpain \n: no overrun \nPortugal : no overrun \n\nOverrun of 19% \nresulting In a reduction of \nECU 11. 07/100kg In the guide \nprice for the Community of Ten \nend ECU 4. 67/100kg for Spain \n(-9. 6X) \n\nPees, \nfield \nbeans \nand swset \nlupins \n\nMCO \nEUR-12 : 3. 900. 000 t \n\nEstimated production \nEUR-12 : 4. 469. 000 t \n\nOverrun of 27. 6% resulting In \na reduction of ECU 4. 8/100 kg \nIn the guide prices for peas \nand field beans (-16. 5%) \n\n01 ive \nol I \n\nO. M. C. EUR-12 \n\n1. 390. 000 t \n\nProduction will be \nestimated In March \n1992 \n\nNo clear indication \n\nOuantlty covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme: \n1S. 600. 00Oh! \n\nYes : averoge price reduction \nfor compulsory distillation : \nabout 28% \n\nWine \n\nCompulsory distilla \ntion : Pries bosed on \nthe quantity covered \nby the compulsory-\ndistillation scheme,as \nfollows : 50% of ths \nguide price for the \nequivalent of 10% of \nthe volume used; \n7. 5X of that price \nfor the remainder \n\n1992/93 \n\nI Ouota or quantity \nlapplI cab I a/proposed. | \nI \nI Proposed In the \nI context of CAP \nI reform : the some \nI am for 1991/92 \n\nI The same as for \nI 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \n\nI SMC : (approvsd \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nIEUR-12: 2. 377. 000ha \nl(wlth DDR) \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nIEUR-10:1. 202. 000ha \nISpaln :1. 411,000ha \n(Portugal:122. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI SMC : (approved \nI by the CounclI) \nI \nI EUR-12:509. OOOho \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI as for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI MCO : the some \nI os for 1991/92 \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \nI \ni \nI \n\n\f- 06 -\n\n1991/92 \n\nOuota or MCO \napplicable \n\n| \n1 \n\nMarket situation 1 \n\nOverrun \n\n1 \n\n1992/93 \n\nI \n\n1 \n\nOuota or quantity 1 \napplIcable/propossdl \n\n1 Tobocco I \n\nOvera 11 MCO \n1 \nEUR 12 : 390. 000 t of 1 \nleaf tobacco. 1 \nAllocated by variety 1 \n\nAnticipated overall 1 \nproduction : \n1 \nEUR 12 : t490. 000 t I \n\nOverrun In the case of cer- \nteln varieties \n\n1 \nI \n\n1 Cotton \n\n1 \n\nMCO : 752. 000 t \n(EUR-12) \n\n1 \nI \n\nEstimated production:! \nEUR-12 : 888. 912 t I \n\nReduction of old by 6. 710 \nECU/100 kg \n\n1 \n\n1 Fresh \n1 tomatoes \n\nIntervention threshold ! \n1 \nEUR-12 : 599. 300 t \n\nt Caul 1-\nI flowers \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 57. 300 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n52. 218 \n(provlslonol) \n\nWithdrawals : \n26. 350 \n(provlslonol) \n\nNo overrun \n\n1 Nectar 1-\n1 tines \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 62. 400 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n79. 043 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 9%) \n\n1 Peaches \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 269. 700 t \n\nWithdrawals : \n\n422. 688 \n\n(provlslonol) \n\nOverrun anticipated, \n(price reduction of 6%) \n\nOverall quoto : 1 \nEUR 12:340. 000 t 1 \nollocated by \nj \nvariety and group 1 \nof varieties, \n1 \nproposed to the 1 \nI \nCouncil \n\n1 \nMCO : EUR 12 \nI \n701. 00 t \nI \n(the same as \nI \nlost year but \n1 \nadapt to take \n1 \naccount of the \nchonge In the \n| \nstandard quantity)! \n\n| \nIntervention \nthresholds : \n1 \nthe some as for 1 \nI \n1991/92 \n\n3% of the overage 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nfor coneumptIon, 1 \nnot Including pro-l \nducts for proces- I \nelng. In the lest 1 \n1 \nfive yeers \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncauliflowers \n\n12 X of overege 1 \nquantity produced 1 \nsome basis as for 1 \n1 \ncaul iflowsrs \n\nthe some as In \n1991/92 \n\n1 \n1 \n\n|-Apples \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 240. 300 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 Oranges \n\nIntervention threshold \nEUR-12 : 1. 181. 800 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\nI Lemons \n\n! Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 369. 400 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 Sotsumos \n\n1 Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 34,900 t \n\nMarketing year \nunder way \n\n1 CI4m\u00abn-\n1 tines \n\n1 Intervention threshold \n1 EUR-12 : 133. 900 t \n\nMarketing year \n\n1 under way \n\n1 Vendor 1-\nt net \n\nI Intervention threshold \nI EUR-12 : 35,800 t \n\n1 Marketing year \n1 under way \n\n\u2022f \n\n10 X of average 1 \nquantity produced 1 \n1 In the last five 1 \n1 \n! years plus \n1 \n! 792. 392 t \n\nI 10 X of average I \nI quantity produced I \nI In the last five I \nI \nI yeors plus \nI \nI 290. 993 t \n\nI 10 X of avsrags 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 In the lest five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n1 10 % of overege 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \n1 in the lost five 1 \n1 \n1 years \n\n1 10 % of average 1 \n1 quantity produced 1 \nI In the last five 1 \n1 \n1 yeers \n\n\fOuota or MCOs \napplIcablo \n\nMarket situation \n\nOvc \n\n1991/92 \n\n1992/93 \n\nOuota or quantity \napplI coble/proposed \n\nProcessed \ntomatoes \n\nGuarantee thresholds \nConcentrate : \nEUR-11 \nCermany \n\n: 4. 283. 699 t \n33. 700 t \n\nPeeled \nEUR-12 \n\n1. 543. 228 t \n\nOther \nEUR-11 \nCermony \n\n734. 920 t \n1. 300 t \n\nOrled \ngrapes \n\nCuarantee threshold \nCurrants \n68. 000 t \nSultanas \n93. 000 t \nMoscotsl \n4. 000 t \n\nWilli ome \npears \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR 12 : 102. 805 t \n\nPsochee \nIn syrup \n\nCuarantee threshold \nEUR-12 : 582. 000 t \n\nOverall guaranteed \nquantity (Including \nCommunity reserve and \ntemporary suspension of \n\n4. 5 X) \nEUR 11 : 98,802. 551 t \n(without Portugal) \n\nNo claer Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo clear Indication \n\nNo overrun \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nNo overrun \n\nSmall overrun expected, on the \nfat basis content (tO. SX) \n\nSame thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nSome thresholds \nas In 1991/92 \n\nPropossd \nIn the context \nof the CAP \nreform : \n\n2X cut +of which \nIX redistri \nbution \n\nA proposal mads \nIn the context \nof CAP reform: \n-Individual limit \n\nper producer \n-freeze If the \n\nreduction In the \nbasic price, of \n7% \n\nShsepmeot \n\nMaximum guaranteed \nlevel for ewe flock \n63. 400. 000 head \n18. 100. 000 for Croat \nBritain and \n45. 300,000 for EUR-11 \nand Northern Ireland \n\nEsttmetsd 1991 flock: \n46,360,000 heed for \nEUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and \n19. 775. 000 for Croat \nBritain \n\nEstimated overrun of 9% \nfor EUR-11 and Northern \nIrelond and 6% for Croat \nBritain, reductlor-e In the \nbasic prices of 6. 45% and 8. 1% \nrespectively (with effect \nfrom 7 jon 1991) \n\n\f- 68 -\n\nTable S \n\nTrends In econoalc Indices froa 1980 to 1990 In real t e ns \n- EUR 12 -\n\nIndex base on 1980 - 100 \n\nYears \n\nExpenditure \nEAGGF-Guarantee \n\nGNP \ntotal \n\n(D(3) \n\n(2) \n\nFinal \nagrlcult. output \n(2) \n\nEapioyi. In agric. In AlU \n\nFinal agric. output per \npers. eapi. (2) \n\nNVA \nagric. NVA \nper AMU \n\n(1) \n\n(1) \n\n1980 \n1981 \n1982 \n1983 \n1984 \n1985 \n1986 \n1987 \n1988 \n1989 \n1990 \n\n100. 0 \n89. 0 \n91. 7 \n110. 4 \n121. 0 \n125. 5 \n136. 9 \n138. 4 \n160. 6 \n142. 5 \n131. 9 \n\n100. 0 \n100. 1 \n101. 0 \n102. 7 \n105. 1 \n107. 6 \n110. 5 \n113. 8 \n118. 3 \n122. 2 \n125. 5 \n\n100. 0 \n99. 1 \n104. 5 \n104. 9 \n108. 0 \n107. 9 \n110. 1 \n110. 0 \n112. 1 \n113. 3 \n113. 7 \n\n100. 0 \n95. 0 \n91. 8 \n89. 5 \n87. 3 \n85. 9 \n83. 2 \n80. 9 \n75. 3 \n75. 0 \n72. 8 \n\n100. 0 \n104. 4 \n113. 8 \n117. 2 \n123. 8 \n125. 7 \n132. 3 \n135. 9 \n143. 1 \n151. 1 \n156. 1 \n\n100. 0 \n97. 2 \n104. 0 \n98. 4 \n99. 5 \n93. 9 \n92. 1 \n88. 1 \n87. 3 \n92. 9 \n86. 2 \n\n100. 0 \n102. 3 \n113. 3 \n109. 9 \n114. 0 \n109. 4 \n110. 6 \n108. 8 \n111. 5 \n123. 9 \n118. 4 \n\n(1) In real teras (6NP deflator) \n(2) In constant prices \n(3) Budget \"1987\" : froa 1 January to 31 October 1987 \n\nBudget \"1988\" : froa 1 Novenber 1987 to 15 October 1988 \nBudget \"1989\" : froa 16 October 1988 to 15 October 1989 \nBudget \"1990\" : froa 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1990 \n\nGNP : Gross National Product at aarket price \nNVA : Net Value Added at factor cost \nAWU : Annual Work Unit \n\nSource : Eurostat - DG VI \n\n\f- 69 _ \n\nFigure 1 \n\nNet value added (1) per person employed in agriculture (2) \n\n\"1985\" (3) = 100 \n\n130r \n\n110 \n\n701 \n80 \n\n81 \n\n82 \n\n83 \n\n84 \n\n85 \n\n86 \n\n87 \n\n88 \n\n89 \n\n90 \n\n91 \n\no \n\n< \n> \no \nQ \nUJ \nUJ \nO \n\n(1) At factor cost in real terms, adjusted on the basis of the 6DP \n\ndeflator. (2) Based on the number of work units. (3) Average 1984, 1985, 1986. Source: EUR0STAT - sectoral income index \n\n\f- 70 -\n\nNet value added per person employed in agriculture \n\n\"1985\" = 100 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130. 110-\n\n/ / / / / f \n\nLuxembourg \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\nDanmark \n\n/ / / / / f \n\nf / / / / * \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 1\u2014, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n, \n\n/ J / f /. *N \n\nr \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n70 \n\n130-\n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nT \nA \n/ \n\n1 \n\n1 T \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\nNederiand \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n130 \n\n110 \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\n/ \n\ni \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014 i \u2014r \n\nCEE DG VIA5 Jan. 92 M. O. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 94/1 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-126-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42341-2 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6215439f-65c9-493b-8ada-c22d5a2740ac", "title": "Portability of educational software in relation to the creation of a viable European market.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture", "date": "1992-03-24", "subjects": "computer,education,new educational methods,software,teaching materials", "workIds": "PUB_CY7291843", "eurovoc_concepts": ["computer", "education", "new educational methods", "software", "teaching materials"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6215439f-65c9-493b-8ada-c22d5a2740ac", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f77b654e-058b-48e0-ab22-5b3919921340", "title": "Question No 6 by Mr GANGOITI LLAGUNO (H-0309/92) to the Council: Committee of the Regions", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GANGOITI LLAGUNO", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Treaty on European Union,culture,education,political representation,public health,regional development", "workIds": "celex:91992H000309", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Treaty on European Union", "culture", "education", "political representation", "public health", "regional development"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f77b654e-058b-48e0-ab22-5b3919921340", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/aea2bbdb-0060-443a-bb7f-b6fb0d15aade", "title": "Question No 3 by Mrs RUIZ-GIMENEZ AGUILAR (H-0297/92) to the Council: Respect for human rights as a determining factor in granting aid to developing countries", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RUIZ-GIMENEZ AGUILAR", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Algeria,Morocco,Syria,democracy,development aid,human rights,terms for aid", "workIds": "celex:91992H000297", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Algeria", "Morocco", "Syria", "democracy", "development aid", "human rights", "terms for aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/aea2bbdb-0060-443a-bb7f-b6fb0d15aade", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/733c7b5e-5d73-42ba-a548-127affe954f1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 608/92 by Mr Gijs de VRIES to European Political Cooperation. Human rights violations in Egypt", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DE VRIES,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Amnesty International,Egypt,European political cooperation,charter on human rights,human rights,report", "workIds": "celex:91992E000608", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Amnesty International", "Egypt", "European political cooperation", "charter on human rights", "human rights", "report"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/733c7b5e-5d73-42ba-a548-127affe954f1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/309c4ead-d821-4995-afed-ec70a004c09a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 639/92 by: Mr Bartho PRONK to the Commission. Establishment of physiotherapists in Germany", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PRONK", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Germany,application of EU law,equivalence of diplomas,paramedical profession,professional qualifications,recognition of diplomas,right of establishment,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:91992E000639", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Germany", "application of EU law", "equivalence of diplomas", "paramedical profession", "professional qualifications", "recognition of diplomas", "right of establishment", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/309c4ead-d821-4995-afed-ec70a004c09a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/897e0c55-6fc9-48fe-a465-730d0516ecc8", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 626/92 by: Mrs Ursula SCHLEICHER to the Commission. Authorization periods for medicinal products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SCHLEICHER", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "administrative procedure,approximation of laws,marketing standard,pharmaceutical product,public health", "workIds": "celex:91992E000626", "eurovoc_concepts": ["administrative procedure", "approximation of laws", "marketing standard", "pharmaceutical product", "public health"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/897e0c55-6fc9-48fe-a465-730d0516ecc8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3331ac3e-c9c1-4304-a90c-9d0c1d0852bb", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 618/92 by Mr Filippos PIERROS to the Commission. Restriction of telecommunications monopolies in the Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PIERROS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "communications policy,competition,market access,monopoly,single market,telecommunications,telephone,telephone charges", "workIds": "celex:91992E000618", "eurovoc_concepts": ["communications policy", "competition", "market access", "monopoly", "single market", "telecommunications", "telephone", "telephone charges"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3331ac3e-c9c1-4304-a90c-9d0c1d0852bb", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/78d90e58-8393-4b10-9ba0-91abadab0caa", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 647/92 by: Christa RANDZIO-PLATH and Karla PEIJS to the Commission. Different treatment for the distribution of dividends by companies based in a Member State and those based in a third country", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PEIJS,RANDZIO-PLATH", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "double taxation,equal treatment,head office,public limited company,tax convention,tax system", "workIds": "celex:91992E000647", "eurovoc_concepts": ["double taxation", "equal treatment", "head office", "public limited company", "tax convention", "tax system"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/78d90e58-8393-4b10-9ba0-91abadab0caa", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d305a9a2-4984-46b0-9b94-7838893bd2dd", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 634/92 by: Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Measures to combat pollution of the Asopos river", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Greece,environmental protection,industrial pollution,polluter pays principle,pollution of waterways,water treatment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000634", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "environmental protection", "industrial pollution", "polluter pays principle", "pollution of waterways", "water treatment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d305a9a2-4984-46b0-9b94-7838893bd2dd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ff3d47c5-43bb-4206-8c09-7f6a522069b3", "title": "Question No 80 by Mr MAHER (H-0305/92) to the Commission: Structural funding for infrastructure in Ireland", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MAHER", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Ireland,Structural Funds,airport,rail transport,road network,transport infrastructure", "workIds": "celex:91992H000305", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Ireland", "Structural Funds", "airport", "rail transport", "road network", "transport infrastructure"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ff3d47c5-43bb-4206-8c09-7f6a522069b3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f3cf6bee-ab71-4e92-8abe-636809a1e738", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 623/92 by Annemarie GOEDMAKERS to the Commission. Encouraging research contracts for universities", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GOEDMAKERS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "contract,tax exemption,tax incentive,university research", "workIds": "celex:91992E000623", "eurovoc_concepts": ["contract", "tax exemption", "tax incentive", "university research"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f3cf6bee-ab71-4e92-8abe-636809a1e738", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/38eec22a-5d36-462c-996d-ea76df3cab3f", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 611/92 by Jean-Pierre RAFFIN to the Commission. Protection for the habitat of the brown bear in France", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RAFFIN", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Midi-Pyren\u00e9es,environmental protection,habitat,protection of animals", "workIds": "celex:91992E000611", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Midi-Pyren\u00e9es", "environmental protection", "habitat", "protection of animals"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/38eec22a-5d36-462c-996d-ea76df3cab3f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7609da9c-b6f1-47f5-8750-e29810ffc31f", "title": "Question No 84 by Mr CRAMPTON (H-0317/92) to the Commission: The Interreg programme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CRAMPTON,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "frontier region,priority region,regional development", "workIds": "celex:91992H000317", "eurovoc_concepts": ["frontier region", "priority region", "regional development"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7609da9c-b6f1-47f5-8750-e29810ffc31f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/aed5e629-252d-4c69-94ca-1ed9d0034c82", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 631/92 by Henry CHABERT to the Commission. Training in homeopathy teaching in Eastern Europe", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CHABERT,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,alternative medicine,cooperation agreement,teaching", "workIds": "celex:91992E000631", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "alternative medicine", "cooperation agreement", "teaching"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/aed5e629-252d-4c69-94ca-1ed9d0034c82", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bafb74c6-2106-42aa-84d2-a78b3aeb869c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 610/92 by Mr Jean-Pierre RAFFIN to the Commission. Funding for underground electric cables", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RAFFIN", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "EU financing,Structural Funds,countryside conservation,electric cable,electricity supply,environmental protection,maintenance,nuisance,protection of animal life,quality of the environment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000610", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU financing", "Structural Funds", "countryside conservation", "electric cable", "electricity supply", "environmental protection", "maintenance", "nuisance", "protection of animal life", "quality of the environment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bafb74c6-2106-42aa-84d2-a78b3aeb869c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6dcc3b8c-2937-41bf-bcfc-62fd7463e16b", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 601/92 by: Hedwig KEPPELHOFF-WIECHERT, Honor FUNK, Pol MARCK, Reinhold BOCKLET and Reimer B\u00d6GE to the Commission. Exports of live cattle to Poland", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BOCKLET,BOEGE,European Parliament,FUNK,KEPPELHOFF-WIECHERT,MARCK", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Poland,breeding animal,cattle,export refund,fraud,live animal", "workIds": "celex:91992E000601", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Poland", "breeding animal", "cattle", "export refund", "fraud", "live animal"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6dcc3b8c-2937-41bf-bcfc-62fd7463e16b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d452ccb3-f281-483c-a520-01ae632a6b4a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 641/92 by: Mrs Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Exploitation of Burma' s tropical forests", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,POLLACK", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "GATT,Malaysia,Myanmar/Burma,cooperation policy,forestry holding,import restriction", "workIds": "celex:91992E000641", "eurovoc_concepts": ["GATT", "Malaysia", "Myanmar/Burma", "cooperation policy", "forestry holding", "import restriction"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d452ccb3-f281-483c-a520-01ae632a6b4a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/49654949-be36-427b-a95d-6b598e6bb376", "title": "Question No 83 by Mr ROBLES PIQUER (H-0314/92) to the Commission: Reorganization of the Commission", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ROBLES PIQUER", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "European Commission,administrative reform,administrative structures", "workIds": "celex:91992H000314", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Commission", "administrative reform", "administrative structures"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/49654949-be36-427b-a95d-6b598e6bb376", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dbaf816d-c06b-4ea3-b735-a4512581f856", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE harmonizing the term of protection", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "approximation of laws,competition,copyright,literature,software,visual arts", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0033,comnat:COM_1992_0033_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_092_R_0006_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "competition", "copyright", "literature", "software", "visual arts"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dbaf816d-c06b-4ea3-b735-a4512581f856", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a8489155-12d0-4e67-a119-0bc28171eec1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 630/92 by: Mr Henry CHABERT to the Commission. Development of commercial relations and trade between companies in the Community and Eastern Europe", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CHABERT,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,France,bilateral agreement,economic cooperation,extra-EU trade,small and medium-sized enterprises,trade agreement,trade cooperation,trade relations,trading operation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000630", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "France", "bilateral agreement", "economic cooperation", "extra-EU trade", "small and medium-sized enterprises", "trade agreement", "trade cooperation", "trade relations", "trading operation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a8489155-12d0-4e67-a119-0bc28171eec1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6683d98d-b9c0-42d7-93ad-cb46d65c5f9c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 613/92 by Mrs Karla PEIJS to the Commission. European system of guarantees for precious metals", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PEIJS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "European standard,consumer information,consumer protection,fraud,free movement of goods,labelling,precious metal", "workIds": "celex:91992E000613", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European standard", "consumer information", "consumer protection", "fraud", "free movement of goods", "labelling", "precious metal"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6683d98d-b9c0-42d7-93ad-cb46d65c5f9c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f2de1f46-6106-435b-a4c3-7e384417f6e6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 627/92 by: Mrs Ursula SCHLEICHER to the Commission. Health of migrants", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SCHLEICHER", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,conference proceedings,financial aid,foreign national,health aid,immigration,migrant,public health,technical cooperation,therapeutics", "workIds": "celex:91992E000627", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "conference proceedings", "financial aid", "foreign national", "health aid", "immigration", "migrant", "public health", "technical cooperation", "therapeutics"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f2de1f46-6106-435b-a4c3-7e384417f6e6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bc60893d-918d-4ba3-90e0-bcc3f9b8118f", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 605/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Regulation of aerosol gases", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "aerosol,consumer protection,gas,inflammable product,product safety,substitute product", "workIds": "celex:91992E000605", "eurovoc_concepts": ["aerosol", "consumer protection", "gas", "inflammable product", "product safety", "substitute product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bc60893d-918d-4ba3-90e0-bcc3f9b8118f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/542cea7e-51a1-49b9-ba62-08df86cd4216", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 638/92 by: Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Measures to combat erosion in Greece", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "EU aid,Greece,desertification,environmental protection,erosion", "workIds": "celex:91992E000638", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Greece", "desertification", "environmental protection", "erosion"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/542cea7e-51a1-49b9-ba62-08df86cd4216", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3bf9f97f-edcb-43af-8099-c93586d015ad", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 644/92 by: Mr James FORD to the Commission. Liability of suppliers of services", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,FORD", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "building industry,damage,liability,medicine,proposal (EU),provision of services,voluntary work", "workIds": "celex:91992E000644", "eurovoc_concepts": ["building industry", "damage", "liability", "medicine", "proposal (EU)", "provision of services", "voluntary work"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3bf9f97f-edcb-43af-8099-c93586d015ad", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3a63d14e-46a3-4d28-ad21-cba9dcaf13b3", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 649/92 by: Mr Marco TARADASH to the Commission. The World Bank and pollution in the third world", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,TARADASH", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "World Bank,cost of pollution,dangerous substance,developing countries,environmental protection,industrial pollution,press release", "workIds": "celex:91992E000649", "eurovoc_concepts": ["World Bank", "cost of pollution", "dangerous substance", "developing countries", "environmental protection", "industrial pollution", "press release"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3a63d14e-46a3-4d28-ad21-cba9dcaf13b3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/580eb1de-01be-43e5-bf6f-25b38506092e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 615/92 by Mr Ingo FRIEDRICH to the Commission. Public contracts for small and medium-sized business", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,FRIEDRICH INGO", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "European standard,Official Journal,Structural Funds,appeal to an administrative authority,application of EU law,market access,public contract,small and medium-sized enterprises,technical standard", "workIds": "celex:91992E000615", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European standard", "Official Journal", "Structural Funds", "appeal to an administrative authority", "application of EU law", "market access", "public contract", "small and medium-sized enterprises", "technical standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/580eb1de-01be-43e5-bf6f-25b38506092e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/185aa485-906d-4a95-9112-868375156313", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 650/92 by: Mr Marco TARADASH to the Council. The World Bank and pollution in the third world", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,TARADASH", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "World Bank,cost of pollution,degree of pollution,developing countries,industrial pollution,press release", "workIds": "celex:91992E000650", "eurovoc_concepts": ["World Bank", "cost of pollution", "degree of pollution", "developing countries", "industrial pollution", "press release"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/185aa485-906d-4a95-9112-868375156313", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4e110513-62fc-490b-9b5b-22cd164d4f62", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 637/92 by: Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Construction of a natural gas plant at Revithousa", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Central Greece,industrial building,industrial hazard,location of industry,natural gas,natural hazard,seismology", "workIds": "celex:91992E000637", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central Greece", "industrial building", "industrial hazard", "location of industry", "natural gas", "natural hazard", "seismology"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4e110513-62fc-490b-9b5b-22cd164d4f62", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e6243964-08dd-45f7-8b65-8cd3ffc400b6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 621/92 by Mr Filippos PIERROS to the Council. More effective access for small and medium-sized businesses to Community resources", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PIERROS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "EU financing,action programme,corporate finance,financing plan,small and medium-sized enterprises", "workIds": "celex:91992E000621", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU financing", "action programme", "corporate finance", "financing plan", "small and medium-sized enterprises"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e6243964-08dd-45f7-8b65-8cd3ffc400b6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f4726006-c3f1-4640-8731-c760afb93bf1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 606/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Commission. ' European' voting rights at municipal elections", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "EU national,Treaty on European Union,local election,residence,right to stand for election,right to vote", "workIds": "celex:91992E000606", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU national", "Treaty on European Union", "local election", "residence", "right to stand for election", "right to vote"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f4726006-c3f1-4640-8731-c760afb93bf1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d0841fe2-c0fd-42a4-bc7d-df8fe8e51eae", "title": "Commission Directive 92/19/EEC of 23 March 1992 amending Directive 66/401/EEC on the marketing of fodder plant seed", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "fodder plant,marketing,seed", "workIds": "celex:31992L0019,oj:JOL_1992_104_R_0061_044", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fodder plant", "marketing", "seed"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d0841fe2-c0fd-42a4-bc7d-df8fe8e51eae", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/28a8e367-2bfe-4dff-aee8-6097d6732992", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 716/92 of 23 March 1992 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 3810/91 as regards the period of validity of STM licences", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Portugal,Spain,beef,quantitative restriction,supplementary trade mechanism", "workIds": "celex:31992R0716,oj:JOL_1992_078_R_0005_012", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Portugal", "Spain", "beef", "quantitative restriction", "supplementary trade mechanism"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/28a8e367-2bfe-4dff-aee8-6097d6732992", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7f0d2142-aeaf-4449-96c9-26606150ec66", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 614/92 by Mrs Karla PEIJS to the Commission. North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PEIJS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Caribbean Islands,GATT,North America,economic consequence,free-trade agreement,free-trade area,originating product", "workIds": "celex:91992E000614", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Caribbean Islands", "GATT", "North America", "economic consequence", "free-trade agreement", "free-trade area", "originating product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7f0d2142-aeaf-4449-96c9-26606150ec66", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ec0b4b59-a9e1-491d-81e4-39931eabd9e1", "title": "92/179/EEC: Commission Decision of 23 March 1992 terminating the anti- dumping proceeding concerning imports of cotton yarn originating in Egypt", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Egypt,dumping,textile fibre", "workIds": "celex:31992D0179,oj:JOL_1992_082_R_0070_043", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Egypt", "dumping", "textile fibre"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ec0b4b59-a9e1-491d-81e4-39931eabd9e1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2eb689fa-f912-409c-98ee-c5d43858c423", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 628/92 by: Mr Detlev SAMLAND to the Council. Restrictions on civil rights under Article 19 of the Greek law on nationality", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SAMLAND", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Greece,civil rights,competence of the Member States,deprivation of rights,national,nationality", "workIds": "celex:91992E000628", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "civil rights", "competence of the Member States", "deprivation of rights", "national", "nationality"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2eb689fa-f912-409c-98ee-c5d43858c423", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cb294988-c1c3-4f02-8697-b327e1febba3", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 624/92 by: Mrs Annemarie GOEDMAKERS to the Commission. Independent advice on the Joint Research Centre", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GOEDMAKERS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Joint Research Centre,advisory committee (EU),board of directors,project management,report,research body,research programme,scientific committee (EU),scientific cooperation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000624", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Joint Research Centre", "advisory committee (EU)", "board of directors", "project management", "report", "research body", "research programme", "scientific committee (EU)", "scientific cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cb294988-c1c3-4f02-8697-b327e1febba3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9df8c717-a3e4-4a71-90e9-f13fb97c60e0", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 723/92 of 23 March 1992 amending the Appendix to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1925/90 on common rules for imports of certain textile products originating in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "USSR,textile product", "workIds": "celex:31992R0723,oj:JOL_1992_079_R_0005_012", "eurovoc_concepts": ["USSR", "textile product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9df8c717-a3e4-4a71-90e9-f13fb97c60e0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/552aef9d-850f-45b1-8da1-71157b872cc4", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 645/92 by: Mr James FORD to the Commission. Equal treatment of EC employees by pan-European employers", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,FORD", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "dismissal,equal treatment,white-collar worker,worker (EU)", "workIds": "celex:91992E000645", "eurovoc_concepts": ["dismissal", "equal treatment", "white-collar worker", "worker (EU)"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/552aef9d-850f-45b1-8da1-71157b872cc4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ddb1b3f4-e2ca-4256-aef7-ee6a9e9af253", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 629/92 by: Mr Ben VISSER to the Commission. Observance of the Marpol Treaty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VISSER", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "International Maritime Organisation,hydrocarbon,international convention,marine pollution,polluter pays principle", "workIds": "celex:91992E000629", "eurovoc_concepts": ["International Maritime Organisation", "hydrocarbon", "international convention", "marine pollution", "polluter pays principle"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ddb1b3f4-e2ca-4256-aef7-ee6a9e9af253", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/86cdad68-3caa-48e7-aef2-51e3df0bcdc2", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 636/92 by: Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Probable pollution of Lake Mornos", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Central Greece,agricultural waste,domestic waste,drinking water,water analysis,water pollution,water supply,water treatment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000636", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central Greece", "agricultural waste", "domestic waste", "drinking water", "water analysis", "water pollution", "water supply", "water treatment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/86cdad68-3caa-48e7-aef2-51e3df0bcdc2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1ac7ee1-33cb-4fe0-9140-9713568a9867", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 633/92 by: Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Protection of the Aposelemis wetlands in Crete", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Crete,competence of the Member States,ecosystem,environmental protection,protected area,storage of waste", "workIds": "celex:91992E000633", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Crete", "competence of the Member States", "ecosystem", "environmental protection", "protected area", "storage of waste"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1ac7ee1-33cb-4fe0-9140-9713568a9867", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e2f954f8-40e8-4835-8789-7d60e201a1f6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 620/92 by Mr Filippos PIERROS to the Council. Structural measures to support the textiles sector", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PIERROS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "EU industrial policy,aid to industry,sectoral aid,structural policy,textile industry", "workIds": "celex:91992E000620", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU industrial policy", "aid to industry", "sectoral aid", "structural policy", "textile industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e2f954f8-40e8-4835-8789-7d60e201a1f6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9c001b18-129c-43ba-a2ef-647309951212", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 603/92 by Mr Paul STAES to the Commission. Infringement of the Directive on the conservation of wild birds and the Ramsar Convention", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,STAES", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Belgium,EC Directive,application of EU law,environmental protection,nature reserve,wildlife", "workIds": "celex:91992E000603", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Belgium", "EC Directive", "application of EU law", "environmental protection", "nature reserve", "wildlife"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9c001b18-129c-43ba-a2ef-647309951212", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8c18064c-92c1-4043-83b9-4a527c654b93", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 625/92 by: Mrs Ursula SCHLEICHER to the Commission. Council directive concerning public health and animal health problems affecting the production and placing on the market of rabbit meat and farmed game meat", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SCHLEICHER", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "game meat,health control,marketing,rabbit meat", "workIds": "celex:91992E000625", "eurovoc_concepts": ["game meat", "health control", "marketing", "rabbit meat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8c18064c-92c1-4043-83b9-4a527c654b93", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/17c7fe6c-4e7b-457f-ae8c-e6a8f9f6f208", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 607/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Council. Action taken under Article 152 of the Treaty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Council of the European Union,EEC Treaty,European Commission,application of EU law,interinstitutional relations", "workIds": "celex:91992E000607", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Council of the European Union", "EEC Treaty", "European Commission", "application of EU law", "interinstitutional relations"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/17c7fe6c-4e7b-457f-ae8c-e6a8f9f6f208", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1011c70-2bba-403b-8c06-fa6954082057", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 609/92 by Mr Ben FAYOT to the Commission. Annual report on the location of Community bodies and departments", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,FAYOT", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "EU institution,activity report,administration of the Institutions,building,property market", "workIds": "celex:91992E000609", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU institution", "activity report", "administration of the Institutions", "building", "property market"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1011c70-2bba-403b-8c06-fa6954082057", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ab55a937-e42a-420b-ad92-d28f408033b3", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 622/92 by: Gianfranco AMENDOLA and Virginio BETTINI to the Commission. Planned opening of the Thermoselect plant in Verbania (Italy) and its environmental impact assessment", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "AMENDOLA,BETTINI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Piedmont,environmental impact,impact study,industrial building,industrial plot,waste disposal", "workIds": "celex:91992E000622", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Piedmont", "environmental impact", "impact study", "industrial building", "industrial plot", "waste disposal"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ab55a937-e42a-420b-ad92-d28f408033b3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f3ae5f1a-9a0d-471f-bf75-2eb1b0dee254", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 617/92 by: Rinaldo BONTEMPI , Mauro CHIABRANDO and Tullio REGGE to the Council. Border checks between France and Italy", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BONTEMPI,CHIABRANDO,European Parliament,REGGE", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "France,Italy,customs inspection,freedom of movement", "workIds": "celex:91992E000617", "eurovoc_concepts": ["France", "Italy", "customs inspection", "freedom of movement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f3ae5f1a-9a0d-471f-bf75-2eb1b0dee254", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/600a6857-20b1-4345-91f5-bf9dacaba3f5", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 643/92 by Edward McMILLAN-SCOTT to the Commission. Taxing of foreign residents in Spain", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MCMILLAN-SCOTT", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Spain,foreign national,local tax,secondary residence,tax system", "workIds": "celex:91992E000643", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Spain", "foreign national", "local tax", "secondary residence", "tax system"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/600a6857-20b1-4345-91f5-bf9dacaba3f5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fe54dac1-ee55-48f8-80aa-d3b012c23bcd", "title": "Amended proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "international transport,intra-EU transport,public health,trade restriction,transport of dangerous goods,waste management", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0121,comnat:COM_1992_0121_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_115_R_0004_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["international transport", "intra-EU transport", "public health", "trade restriction", "transport of dangerous goods", "waste management"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fe54dac1-ee55-48f8-80aa-d3b012c23bcd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b5c4857d-6007-4f7c-a163-0a0b2d4d1150", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 619/92 by Mr Filippos PIERROS to the Commission. Creation of a strategic oil reserve", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PIERROS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "International Energy Agency,committee report,energy storage,energy supply,petroleum,petroleum policy,reserves,security of supply,stock", "workIds": "celex:91992E000619", "eurovoc_concepts": ["International Energy Agency", "committee report", "energy storage", "energy supply", "petroleum", "petroleum policy", "reserves", "security of supply", "stock"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b5c4857d-6007-4f7c-a163-0a0b2d4d1150", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/03525450-fe76-40c8-8eab-22f8f6cba34a", "title": "Question No 8 by Mr CRAMPTON (H-0318/92) to the Council: The International Monetary Fund and the former Soviet Union", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CRAMPTON,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "International Monetary Fund,coordination of aid,economic stabilisation,market economy", "workIds": "celex:91992H000318", "eurovoc_concepts": ["International Monetary Fund", "coordination of aid", "economic stabilisation", "market economy"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/03525450-fe76-40c8-8eab-22f8f6cba34a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5fcec411-34f6-4146-8f9d-ebf31cdaad28", "title": "Question No 25 by Mr ROBLES PIQUER (H-0312/92) to European Political Cooperation: Risks of military use of nuclear power in North Korea", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ROBLES PIQUER", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "North Korea,South Korea,arms control,bilateral agreement,nuclear energy,nuclear non-proliferation,nuclear policy,nuclear weapon,peacekeeping", "workIds": "celex:91992H000312", "eurovoc_concepts": ["North Korea", "South Korea", "arms control", "bilateral agreement", "nuclear energy", "nuclear non-proliferation", "nuclear policy", "nuclear weapon", "peacekeeping"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5fcec411-34f6-4146-8f9d-ebf31cdaad28", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f5d1b190-2685-4c33-b08b-3c7284f108d0", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 648/92 by: Mr Marco TARADASH to the Commission. Thefts of cocaine from inside the Courts of Justice in Rome", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,TARADASH", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Italy,capital city,competence of the Member States,criminal court,drug traffic,legality,narcotic,seizure of goods", "workIds": "celex:91992E000648", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Italy", "capital city", "competence of the Member States", "criminal court", "drug traffic", "legality", "narcotic", "seizure of goods"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f5d1b190-2685-4c33-b08b-3c7284f108d0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1ec0f241-af4f-4aca-988a-f667bee26f68", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 612/92 by Mr Jean-Pierre RAFFIN to the Commission. Measures to protect the brown bear in Europe", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RAFFIN", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "EU aid,activity report,balance sheet,distribution of aid,member country,protection of animals", "workIds": "celex:91992E000612", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "activity report", "balance sheet", "distribution of aid", "member country", "protection of animals"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1ec0f241-af4f-4aca-988a-f667bee26f68", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/20efa09f-6400-4b25-ac1b-12d16a564e9c", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 of 23 March 1992 on a Community eco-label award scheme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "EU environmental policy,consumer information,eco-label,ecology,environmental impact,prevention of pollution", "workIds": "celex:31992R0880,oj:JOL_1992_099_R_0001_003", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU environmental policy", "consumer information", "eco-label", "ecology", "environmental impact", "prevention of pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/20efa09f-6400-4b25-ac1b-12d16a564e9c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d154dc7b-16bb-418e-8cbb-dae5b9891a62", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 640/92 by: Mr Eisso WOLTJER to the Council. The quality of water in the river Meuse", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,WOLTJER", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Belgium,Netherlands,cross-border cooperation,environmental policy,pollution of waterways,regional cooperation,transfrontier pollution,watercourse", "workIds": "celex:91992E000640", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Belgium", "Netherlands", "cross-border cooperation", "environmental policy", "pollution of waterways", "regional cooperation", "transfrontier pollution", "watercourse"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d154dc7b-16bb-418e-8cbb-dae5b9891a62", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fc2592b5-54fb-4d53-ae55-b1f3abce6ec0", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 604/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Telephone card which can be used in all the Member States", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "EU Member State,electronic money,standardisation,telephone", "workIds": "celex:91992E000604", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU Member State", "electronic money", "standardisation", "telephone"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fc2592b5-54fb-4d53-ae55-b1f3abce6ec0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fe5d1342-4cb2-4027-a042-327210bba56a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 642/92 by: Mr John BIRD to the Commission. Lotteries", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BIRD,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "advertising,application of EU law,freedom of trade,freedom to provide services,game of chance", "workIds": "celex:91992E000642", "eurovoc_concepts": ["advertising", "application of EU law", "freedom of trade", "freedom to provide services", "game of chance"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fe5d1342-4cb2-4027-a042-327210bba56a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/95ae946b-09c1-44f8-828d-8ed712d73848", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 646/92 by: Mr Gary TITLEY to the Commission. Support for the victims of crime", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,TITLEY", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "EU national,European cooperation,competence of the Member States,crime against individuals,damages,indemnification,offence,victim", "workIds": "celex:91992E000646", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU national", "European cooperation", "competence of the Member States", "crime against individuals", "damages", "indemnification", "offence", "victim"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/95ae946b-09c1-44f8-828d-8ed712d73848", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6c4cb18a-a89e-4ae5-9b4d-f20966d85cb4", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 717/92 of 23 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2033/85 adapting the guaranteed total quantities of milk and milk products referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 and in Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Netherlands,United Kingdom,direct selling,milk,milk product", "workIds": "celex:31992R0717,oj:JOL_1992_078_R_0006_013", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Netherlands", "United Kingdom", "direct selling", "milk", "milk product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6c4cb18a-a89e-4ae5-9b4d-f20966d85cb4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a967e46a-d561-43e7-aeff-a5bb92d26790", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 616/92 by: Rinaldo BONTEMPI , Mauro CHIABRANDO and Tullio REGGE to the Commission. Border checks between France and Italy", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BONTEMPI,CHIABRANDO,European Parliament,REGGE", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "France,Italy,Treaty on European Union,customs inspection,free movement of persons,single market", "workIds": "celex:91992E000616", "eurovoc_concepts": ["France", "Italy", "Treaty on European Union", "customs inspection", "free movement of persons", "single market"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a967e46a-d561-43e7-aeff-a5bb92d26790", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/876af747-841d-4b23-b099-58f22a35b3f5", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 602/92 by Mr John CUSHNAHAN to the Commission. Compensation of customs clearance agents", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CUSHNAHAN,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "competence of the Member States,customs,customs document,indemnification,job cuts,reintegration into working life,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:91992E000602", "eurovoc_concepts": ["competence of the Member States", "customs", "customs document", "indemnification", "job cuts", "reintegration into working life", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/876af747-841d-4b23-b099-58f22a35b3f5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/801b5b0c-9162-4a94-aa2e-ee7b0dad63e1", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) determining the Community scale for the classification of carcases of ovine animals and determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcases", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "carcase,fresh meat,marketing standard,refrigerated product,sheep", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0065,comnat:COM_1992_0065_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["carcase", "fresh meat", "marketing standard", "refrigerated product", "sheep"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/801b5b0c-9162-4a94-aa2e-ee7b0dad63e1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nfis \n\n!- \n\nt\u2014,. S \n\nC0M(92) 65 final \n\nBrussels, 23 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\ndetermining the Community scale for the classification of carcases of \n\novine animals and determining the Community standard quality of \n\nfresh or chilled sheep carcases \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 338/91C) determining the Community standard \n\nquality of fresh or chilled sheep carcases applies for both the 1991 and 1992 \n\nmarketing years. During discussions at the Council on that regulation the \n\nCommission indicated its intention of introducing a carcase classification \n\nscheme with a view to its eventual use for price reporting purposes. Against \n\nthis background the Council limited the application of its regulation on \n\nstandard quality to two years. The Commission has now completed the \n\nbackground work necessary prior to making a proposal with the aid notably of \n\na report prepared by an \"ad hoc\" group of the Sheep and Goat Consultative \n\nCommi ttee. The carcase classification grid now proposed is based on five conformation \n\nand five fat classes. However, for animals lighter than 13 kg carcase weight \n\na classification grid based on these two characteristics does not describe \n\ntheir characteristics adequately. Given the importance of these carcases \n\nnotably in Mediterranean member states, it is proposed that a second grid \n\nencompassing weight, meat colour and fatness levels could be applied to them. While it is expected that the classification systems proposed will benefit \n\nthe entire sheep industry their principal use in a regulatory framework will \n\nbe in the area of price reporting. The Commission proposes that the present \n\ndefinition of standard quality be strengthened through the application to it \n\nof standards contained within the classification system. Thus carcases over \n\n12 kg in weight and falling within conformation classes U R 0 and fat classes \n\n2 and 3 wiI I be taken into account for price reporting purposes. However, in \n\nthe weight range 12-13 kg, for Members States using the alternative \n\nclassification system the criteria to be taken into account shall be meat \n\ncolour and fat level. Carcases in that weight range will be classified as \n\nfirst and second quality for price reporting purposes. (1) OJ No L 41, 14. 2. 1991, p. 1 \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nThe Commission is aware that, given the importance of price reporting based \n\non live marketings of sheep in several Member States, it may not be possible \n\nto switch over solely to sheep carcase based price reporting in 1993. In \n\nthese circumstances, the Commission considers it necessary that price \n\nreporting based on live animals be permitted to continue under conditions to \n\nbe determined (Management Committee) so as to achieve an equivalence with the \n\ncarcase classification grid. 4 -\n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\ndetermining the Community scale for the classification of carcases of \n\novine animals and determining the Community standard quality of \n\nfresh or chilled sheep carcases \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \n\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89^^ of 25 September \n\n1989 on the common organization of the market in the sheepmeat and goatmeat \n\nsector, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1741/91(2*, and in \n\nparticular Article 4(2) thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nWhereas a carcase classification standard is necessary in order to permit the \n\ndetermination of a permanent standard quality; \n\nWhereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 338/91<3> of 5 February 1991 \n\ndetermining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcases \n\napplied for the 1991 and 1992 marketing years pending the setting up of \n\nCommunity carcase classification standards; whereas these standards should \n\nnow be set ; \n\n(1) OJ No L 289, 7. 10. 1989, p. 1. (2) OJ No L 163, 26. 6. 1991, p. 41 \n\n(3) OJ No L 41, 14. 2. 1991, p. 1. - 5 -\n\nWhereas the classification must be made on the basis of conformation and the \n\ndegree of fat cover; whereas the combination of these two criteria enables \n\ncarcases of ovine animals to be divided into classes; whereas classified \n\ncarcases must be identified; \n\nWhereas, however, other criteria, in particular weight, meat colour, and fat \n\ncover, may be used for the classification of carcases of lambs less than \n\n13 kg weight; whereas Member States wishing to use these criteria should \n\ninform the Commission and other Member States; \n\nWhereas, in order to ensure the uniform application of this Regulation in the \n\nCommunity, provision should be made for on-the-spot checks by a Community \n\ninspect ion group; \n\nWhereas the definition of the Community standard quality should take account \n\nof the carcase classification standards established in this Regulation, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArt icle 1 \n\nThis regulation lays down Community classification scales for the carcases of \n\nsheep. It also determines the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled \n\nsheep carcases. Art icle 2 \n\nFor the purposes of carcase classification the following presentations shall \n\napply: \n\n(a) \n\ncarcase: the whole body of a slaughter animal as presented after \n\nbleeding, evisceration and skinning, presented without the head \n\n(severed at the atlanto-occipital joint), \n\nthe feet (severed at the carpo-metacarpal or tarsometatarsal Joints), \n\nthe tail (severed between the sixth and seventhcaudal vertebrae), \n\nthe udder, the genetalia, the liver and the pluck. Kidneys and kidney \n\nfat are included in the carcase. - 6 -\n\n(b) half-carcase: the product obtained by separating the carcase referred \n\nto in (a) symmetrically through the middle of each cervical, dorsal, \n\nlumbar and sacral vertebra and though the middle of the sternum and the \n\nischiopubic symphysis. However, Member States shall be authorized according to the procedure \n\nprovided for in Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 to accept different \n\npresentations when this reference presentation is not used. In such instances, the adjustments necessary to progress from those \n\npresentations to the reference presentation shall be determined in accordance \n\nwith the same procedure. Art icle 3 \n\n1. Carcases of ovine animals shall be divided into the following \n\ncategor ies: \n\ncarcases of lamb under twelve months old, \n\ncarcases of other sheep. 2. The carcases of ovine animals shall be classified by assessment \n\nrespect ively of: \n\n(a) conformation, \n\n(b) fat cover, \n\nas identified in Annexes I and II, respectively. However, for lambs of less than 13 kg carcase weight, Member States may \n\nbe authorized to use the following criteria for classification; \n\n(a) carcase weight \n\n(b) colour of meat \n\n(c) fat cover, \n\nas defined in Annex III. - 7 -\n\nMember States which intend to use this authorization shall so notify \n\nthe Commission and the other Member States prior to 30 June 1992. 3. Member States shall be authorized to subdivide each of the classes \n\nenvisaged in Annexes I and II into a maximum of three sub-classes. Article 4 \n\n1. Carcases or half-carcases shall be classified as soon as possible after \n\nslaughter and such classification shall be carried out in the \n\nslaughterhouse itself. 2. The classified carcases or half-carcases shall be identified by \n\nmarking. 3. The detailed rules for applying this Article shall be adopted in \n\naccordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30 of Regulation \n\nNo 3013/89. Art icle 5 \n\nOn-the-spot inspection shall be carried out by a Community inspection group \n\ncomposed of experts from the Commission and experts appointed by the Member \n\nStates. This group shall report back to the Commission on checks carried \n\nout. The Commission shall, if appropriate, take the measures necessary to ensure \n\nthat the classification is carried out in a uniform manner. The inspections shall be carried out on behalf of the Community, which shall \n\nbear the resulting costs. The detailed rules for applying this Article shall be adopted in accordance \n\nwith the procedure laid down in Article 30 of Regulation No 3013/89. - 8 -\n\nArt icle 6 \n\nAdditional provisions specifying the definition of the classes of \n\nconformation, fat cover, carcase weight and colour of meat shall be adopted \n\nin accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) \n\nNo 3013/89 before 31 October 1992. Art icle 7 \n\n1. The Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcases shall \n\nbe lamb of less than one year old at slaughter with a carcase weight or \n\nestimated carcase weight of at least 12 kg and falling within the \n\nfollowing classification standards; conformation classes (U, R, 0) and \n\nfat classes (2 and 3) as defined in Annexes I and II respectively. However, for lamb carcases in the weight range 12 - 13. 0 kg, where \n\nMember States have been authorized to use the classification criteria \n\nlaid down in the second sentence of Article 3(2), the classification \n\nstandards shall be meat colour (clear pink, other colour) and fat \n\nlevel (2 and 3) as defined in Annexes II and III. 2. Member States, where first marketings on live markets represent at \n\nleast 20% of total transactions between producers and operators, may be \n\nauthorised to report prices for live animals on the representative \n\nmarkets. Provisions specifying the definition of \n\nlive animal \n\nequivalents of carcases of animals of standard quality shall be adopted \n\nin accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 30 of Regulation \n\n(EEC) No 3019/89 before 31 October 1992. Art icle 8 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of \n\nits publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from the 1993 marketing year. - 9 -\n\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in \n\na I I Member States. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\nThe President \n\n\fANNEX 1 \n\nDevelopment of carcase profiles, in particular the essential parts (hindquarter, back, shoulder) \n\nConformation class \n\n| \n\nDescription \n\nE \nexcellent \n\nU \nvery good \n\nR \ngood \n\n0 \nfair \n\nP \npoor \n\nAll profiles convex to superconvex; exceptional muscle development \n\nProfiles on the Tr\u00f4iole convex; very good muscle development \n\nProfiles on the Tflhole straight; good muscle development \n\nProfiles straight to concave; average muscle development \n\no \ni \n\nProfiles concave to very concave; poor muscle development \n\n\fANNEX II \n\nDBGREE OF FAT (PVER \n\nAnount of fat on the outside of the carcase and in the thoracic cavity \n\nClass of fat cover \n\nDescription \n\n1 \nlow \n\n2 \nslight \n\n3 \naverage \n\n4 \nhigh \n\n5 \nvery high \n\nNone up to low fat cover \n\nSlight fat cover, flesh visible almost everywhere \n\nFlesh, with exception of the hindquarter and shoulder, almost everywhere \ncovered with fat, slight deposits of fat in the thoracic cavity \n\nFlesh covered with fat, but on the hindquarter and shoulder still partly \nvisible, some distinctive fat deposits in the thoracic cavity \n\nCarcase thickly covered with fat; heavy fat deposits in the thoracic cavity \n\n\fCarcase classification grid under Article 3(2) second sentence \n\nANNEX III \n\nCA3H3CKY \n\nTOight \n\nQuality \n\nMeat Colour \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\n\u2022 \n\nA \n\n< 7 kg \n\n1st \n\n! \n\n2nd \n\n* \n\n\u2022 \n\n: \n\nB \n\nC \n\n7. 1- 10 kg \n\n1st \n\n! \n\n2nd \n\n-\n\n: \n\n10. 1 \n\n- \n\n13 kg \n\n1st \n\n! \n\n2nd \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\n: \n\n\u2022 \n\nclear ! other \npink \n\n! colour or \n; other \n\nclear \npink \n\nS other \n! colour or \n; other \n\nclear \npink \n\nS other \n! colour or \n! other \n\nFat class (*) \n\n(2) (3) Jfat level \n\n(2) (3) Ifat level \n\n(2) (3) !fat level \n\n(*) As defined in Annex II. no \ni \n\n\fFINANCIAL STATEMENT \n\n- 13 -\n\n1. BUDGET HEADING: Article 222 \n\nAPPROPRIATIONS: ECU 1 778 MILLION \n\nDATE: 31. 1. 1992 \n\n2. TITLE: \n\nProposal for a Regulation establishing the classification scale for the carcases of sheep and the \nstandard quality for fresh or chiI led carcases \n\n3. LEGAL BASIS: \n\nArticle 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 \n\n4. AIMS OF PROJECT: \n\nTo implement a classification scale with effect frcm the 1993 marketing year to establish the market \nprice of fresh or chi I led sheep carcases, in view of the fact that Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 \ndetermining the standard qua I ity of sheep carcases expires at the end of the 1992 marketing year \n\n5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS \n\n5. 0 EXPENDITURE \n\n- CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET \n- (REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) \n- NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION \n- OTHER \n\n5. 1 REVENUE \n\n- OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC \n(LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) \n\n-NATIONAL \n\n5. 0. 1 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE \n5. 1. 1 ESTIMATED REVENUE \n\n5. 2 k/ETHOD OF CALCULATION: \n\nPeriod of 12 months \n\nCurrent Financial Year \n1992 \n\nFollowing Financial Year \n1993 \n\np. m. p. m. 1994 \n\np. m. 1995 \n\np. m. 1996 \n\np. m. 1997 \n\np. m. 6. 0 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FRCM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? \n\n6. 1 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? \n\n6. 2 IS A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET NECESSARY? \n\n6. 3 WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY? \n\nOBSERVATIONS: \n\n\f\fISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM (92) 65 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n$ \u2022\u2022 \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number : CB-CO-92-079-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-41673-4 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nLr2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a7862754-694b-4293-a9fc-47419e0030b6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 632/92 by: Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Marine pollution off Elefsina, Agii Theodori and in the Thermaikos Gulf", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Central Greece,EC Directive,dangerous substance,dumping of waste,marine pollution", "workIds": "celex:91992E000632", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central Greece", "EC Directive", "dangerous substance", "dumping of waste", "marine pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a7862754-694b-4293-a9fc-47419e0030b6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3acf7137-0a2a-43c1-ad10-d39867586908", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 635/92 by: Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Protection of Mt. Poikilon", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Central Greece,EC Directive,competence of the Member States,environmental protection,regional planning", "workIds": "celex:91992E000635", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central Greece", "EC Directive", "competence of the Member States", "environmental protection", "regional planning"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3acf7137-0a2a-43c1-ad10-d39867586908", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b7c9d364-03ca-42d3-8f77-ca4bfe175f00", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "Brazil,T\u00fcrkiye,anti-dumping duty,cotton,import,textile fibre", "workIds": "celex:31992R0738,oj:JOL_1992_082_R_0001_023", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Brazil", "T\u00fcrkiye", "anti-dumping duty", "cotton", "import", "textile fibre"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b7c9d364-03ca-42d3-8f77-ca4bfe175f00", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4bbcc776-64d6-4f10-842e-659eef8ce0e7", "title": "Question No 12 by Mrs BANOTTI (H-0294/92) to the Council: Community Health Policy", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BANOTTI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-23", "subjects": "AIDS,EU policy,cancer,drug addiction,health education,health policy,smoking", "workIds": "celex:91992H000294", "eurovoc_concepts": ["AIDS", "EU policy", "cancer", "drug addiction", "health education", "health policy", "smoking"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4bbcc776-64d6-4f10-842e-659eef8ce0e7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/293f7a3c-4227-45e0-af57-2146db9edebf", "title": "International Sugar Agreement 1992", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "fmx4,html,pdfa1b,print,xhtml", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_international,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_non-member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Argentina,Australia,Austria,Brazil,Colombia,Cuba,Dominican Republic,Eswatini,European Economic Community,Fiji,Finland,Guatemala,Guyana,Hungary,India,Jamaica,Japan,Mauritius,Panama,South Africa,South Korea,Sweden,Switzerland,Thailand,Trinidad and Tobago,Zambia", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "commodity agreement,multilateral agreement,sugar", "workIds": "celex:21992A1223(01)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["commodity agreement", "multilateral agreement", "sugar"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/293f7a3c-4227-45e0-af57-2146db9edebf", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["fmx4", "html", "pdfa1b", "print", "xhtml"], "text": "L_1992379EN. 01001601. xml\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n23. 12. 1992\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\nEN\n\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n\nL 379/16\n\n\n\n\n\nINTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT 1992\nCONTENTS\nCHAPTER I\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0OBJECTIVES\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 1\n\nObjectives\n18\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0DEFINITIONS\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 2\n\nDefinitions\n18\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0INTERNATIONAL SUGAR ORGANIZATION\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 3\n\nContinuation, headquarters and structure of the International Sugar Organization\n18\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 4\n\nMembership of the Organization\n19\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 5\n\nMembership by intergovernmental organizations\n19\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 6\n\nPrivileges and immunities\n19\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COUNCIL\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 7\n\nComposition of the International Sugar Council\n19\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 8\n\nPowers and functions of the Council\n19\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 9\n\nChairman and vice-chairman of the Council\n20\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 10\n\nSessions of the Council\n20\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 11\n\nVotes\n20\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 12\n\nVoting procedure of the Council\n20\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 13\n\nDecisions of the Council\n20\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 14\n\nCooperations with other organizations\n21\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 15\n\nRelationship with the Common Fund for Commodities\n21\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 16\n\nAdmission of observers\n21\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 17\n\nQuorum for the Council\n21\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 18\n\nComposition of the Administrative Committee\n21\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 19\n\nElection to the Administrative Committee\n22\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 20\n\nDelegation of powers by the Council to the Administrative Committee\n22\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 21\n\nVoting procedure and decisions of the Administrative Committee\n22\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 22\n\nQuorum for the Administrative Committee\n22\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 23\n\nExecutive Director and staff\n23\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0FINANCE\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 24\n\nExpenses\n23\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 25\n\nAdoption of the administrative budget and contributions of Members\n23\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 26\n\nPayment of contributions\n24\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 27\n\nAudit and publication of accounts\n25\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0GENERAL UNDERTAKINGS OF MEMBERS\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 28\n\nUndertakings by Members\n25\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 29\n\nLabour standards\n25\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 30\n\nEnvironmental aspects\n25\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 31\n\nFinancial liability of Members\n25\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0INFORMATION AND STUDIES\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 32\n\nInformation and studies\n25\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 33\n\nMarket evaluation, consumption and statistics\n25\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 34\n\nResearch and development\n26\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0PREPARATIONS FOR A NEW AGREEMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 35\n\nPreparations for a new agreement\n26\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0FINAL PROVISIONS\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 36\n\nDepositary\n26\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 37\n\nSignature\n26\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 38\n\nRatification, acceptance and approval\n26\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 39\n\nNotification of provisional application\n26\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 40\n\nEntry into force\n26\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 41\n\nAccession\n27\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 42\n\nWithdrawal\n27\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 43\n\nSettlement of accounts\n27\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 44\n\nAmendment\n27\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 45\n\nDuration, extension and termination\n27\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nArticle 46\n\nTransitional measures\n28\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nANNEX\n\nAllocation of votes for the purposes of Article 25\n29\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nOBJECTIVES\n\nArticle 1\nObjectives\nThe objectives of the International Sugar Agreement 1992 (hereinafter referred to as \u2018this Agreement\u2019), in the light of the terms of resolution 93 (IV) adopted by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, are:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nto ensure enhanced international cooperation in connection with world sugar matters and related issues;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nto provide a forum for intergovernmental consultations on sugar and on ways to improve the world sugar economy;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nto facilitate trade by collecting and providing information on the world sugar market and other sweeteners;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nto encourage increased demand for sugar, particularly for non-traditional uses. CHAPTER II\n\nDEFINITIONS\n\nArticle 2\nDefinitions\nFor the purpose of this Agreement:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1. \u2018Organization\u2019 means the International Sugar Organization referred to in Article 3;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2. \u2018Council\u2019 means the International Sugar Council referred to in Article 3, paragraph 3;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n3. \u2018Member\u2019 means a Party to this Agreement;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n4. \u2018special vote\u2019 means a vote requiring at least two thirds of the votes cast by Members present and voting, on condition that these votes are cast by at least two thirds of the number of Members present and voting;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n5. \u2018simple majority vote\u2019 means a vote requiring more than half of the total votes of Members present and voting, on condition that these votes are cast by at least half of the number of Members present and voting;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n6. \u2018year\u2019 means the calendar year;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n7. \u2018sugar\u2019 means sugar in any of its recognized commercial forms derived from sugar cane or sugar beet, including edible and fancy molasses, syrups and any other form of liquid sugar, but does not include final molasses or low-grade types of non-centrifugal sugar produced by primitive methods;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n8. \u2018entry into force\u2019 means the date on which this Agreement enters into force provisionally or definitively, as provided for in Article 40;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n9. \u2018free market\u2019 means the total of net imports of the world market, except those resulting from the operation of special arrangements as defined in chapter IX of the International Sugar Agreement, 1977;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n10. \u2018world market\u2019 means the international sugar market and includes both sugar traded on the free market and sugar traded under special arrangements as defined in chapter DC of the International Sugar Agreement, 1977. CHAPTER III\n\nINTERNATIONAL SUGAR ORGANIZATION\n\nArticle 3\nContinuation, headquarters and structure of the International Sugar Organization\n1. The International Sugar Organization established under the International Sugar Agreement, 1968, and maintained in existence under the International Sugar Agreements, 1973, 1977, 1984 and 1987, shall continue in being for the purpose of administering this Agreement and supervising its operation, with the membership, powers and functions set out in this Agreement. 2. The headquarters of the Organization shall be in London, unless the Council decides otherwise by special vote. 3. The Organization shall function through the International Sugar Council, its Administrative Committee and its Executive Director and staff. Article 4\nMembership of the Organization\nEach Party to this Agreement shall be a Member of the Organization. Article 5\nMembership by intergovernmental organizations\nAny reference in this Agreement to a \u2018Government\u2019 or \u2018Governments\u2019 shall be construed as including the European Economic Community and any other intergovernmental organization having responsibilities in respect of the negotiation, conclusion and application of international agreements, in particular commodity agreements. Accordingly, any reference in this Agreement to signature, ratification, acceptance or approval, or to notification of provisional application or to accession shall, in the case of such intergovernmental organizations, be construed as including a reference to signature, ratification, acceptance, or approval, or to notification of provisional application, or to accession, by such intergovernmental organizations. Article 6\nPrivileges and immunities\n1. The Organization shall have international legal personality. 2. The Organization shall have the capacity to contract, to acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property and to institute legal proceedings. 3. The status, privileges and immunities of the Organization in the territory of the United Kingdom shall continue to be governed by the Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the International Sugar Organization signed at London on 29 May 1969, with such amendments as may be necessary for the proper functioning of this Agreement. 4. If the seat of the Organization is moved to a country which is a Member of the Organization, that Member shall, as soon as possible, conclude with the Organization an agreement to be approved by the Council relating to the status, privileges and immunities of the Organization, of its Executive Director, staff and experts and of representatives of Members while in that country for the purpose of exercising their functions. 5. Unless any other taxation arrangements are implemented under the agreement envisaged in paragraph 4 of this Article and pending the conclusion of that agreement the new host Member shall:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\ngrant exemption from taxation on the remuneration paid by the Organization to its employees, except that such exemption need not apply to its own nationals;\nand\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\ngrant exemption from taxation on the assets, income and other property of the Organization. 6. If the seat of the Organization is to be moved to a country which is not a Member of the Organization, the Council shall, before that m6ve, obtain a written assurance from the Government of that country:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nthat it shall, as soon as possible, conclude with the Organization an agreement as described in paragraph 4 of this Article;\nand\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nthat, pending the conclusion of such an agreement, it shall grant the exemptions provided for in paragraph 5 of this Article. 7. The Council shall endeavour to conclude the agreement described in paragraph 4 of this Article with the Government of the country to which the seat of the Organization is to be moved before transferring the seat. CHAPTER IV\n\nINTERNATIONAL SUGAR COUNCIL\n\nArticle 7\nComposition of the International Sugar Council\n1. The highest authority of the Organization shall be the International Sugar Council, which shall consist of all the Members of the Organization. 2. Each Member shall have one representative in the Council, and if it so desires, one or more alternates. Furthermore, a Member may appoint one or more advisers to its representatives or alternates. Article 8\nPowers and functions of the Council\n1. The Council shall exercise all such powers and perform or arrange for the performance of all such functions as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and to pursue the liquidation of the Stock Financing Fund established under Article 49 of the International Sugar Agreement, 1977, as delegated by the Council under that Agreement to the Council under the International Sugar Agreement, 1984, and the International Sugar Agreement, 1987, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, of the latter. 2. The Council shall adopt, by special vote, such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Agreement and are consistent therewith, including rules of procedure for the Council and its committees, and the financial and staff regulations of the Organization. The Council may, in its rules of procedure, provide a procedure whereby it may, without meeting, decide specific questions. 3. The Council shall keep such records as are required to perform its functions under this Agreement and such other records as it considers appropriate. 4. The Council shall publish an annual report and such other information as it considers appropriate. Article 9\nChairman and vice-chairman of the Council\n1. For each year, the Council shall elect from among the delegations a chairman and a vice-chairman, who may be re-elected and shall not be paid by the Organization. 2. In the absence of the chairman, the duties of the post shall be carried out by the vice-chairman. In the temporary absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman or the permanent absence of one or both, the Council may elect from among the delegations new officers, temporary or permanent as appropriate. 3. Neither the chairman nor any other officer presiding at meetings of the Council shall vote. They may, however, appoint another person to exercise the voting rights of the Member which they represent. Article 10\nSessions of the Council\n1. As a general rule, the Council shall hold one regular session in each year. 2. In addition, the Council shall meet in special session whenever it so decides or at the request of:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nany five Members;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\ntwo or more Members holding collectively 250 votes or more under article 11 as determined under Article 25;\nor\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nthe Administrative Committee. 3. Notice of sessions shall be given to Members at least 30 calendar days in advance, except in case of emergency, when such notice shall be given at least 10 calendar days in advance. 4. Sessions shall be held at the headquarters of the Organization unless the Council decides otherwise by special vote. If any Member invites the Council to meet elsewhere than at the headquarters of the Organization, and the Council agrees so to do, that Member shall pay the additional costs involved. Article 11\nVotes\n1. For the purpose of voting under this Agreement, Members shall hold a total of 2\u00a0000 votes distributed as determined under article 25. 2. Whenever a Member has its voting rights suspended under Article 26, paragraph 2, of this Agreement, its votes shall be distributed among the other Members according to their shares as determined under Article 25. The same procedure shall apply when the Member recovers its voting rights, the Member concerned being included in the distribution. Article 12\nVoting procedure of the Council\n1. Each Member shall be entitled to cast the number of votes it holds under article 11 as determined under Article 25. It shall not be entitled to divide such votes. 2. By informing the chairman in writing, any Member may authorize any other Member to represent its interests and to cast its votes at any meeting or meetings of the Council. A copy of such authorizations shall be examined by any credentials committee that may be set up under the rules of procedure of the Council. 3. A Member authorized by another Member to cast the votes held by the authorizing Member under article 11 as determined under Article 25 shall cast such votes as authorized and in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article. Article 13\nDecisions of the Council\n1. All decisions of the Council shall be taken and all recommendations shall be made, in principle, by consensus. In the absence of consensus, decisions and recommendations shall be made by simple majority vote, unless this Agreement provides for a special vote. 2. In arriving at the number of votes necessary for any decision of the Council, votes of Members abstaining shall not be reckoned and those Members shall not be considered as \u2018voting\u2019 for the purposes of Article 2, definition 4 or definition 5, as the case may be. Where a Member avails itself of the provisions of Article 12, and its votes are cast at a meeting of the Council, such Member shall, for the purposes of paragraph 1 of this Article, be considered as present and voting. 3. All decisions of the Council under this Agreement shall be binding upon Members. Article 14\nCooperation with other organizations\n1. The Council shall make whatever arrangements are appropriate for consultation or cooperation with the United Nations and its organs, in particular the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and with the Food and Agriculture Organization and such other specialized agencies of the United Nations and intergovernmental organizations as may be appropriate. 2. The Council, bearing in mind the particular role of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in international commodity trade, shall as appropriate keep the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development informed of its activities and programmes of work. 3. The Council may also make whatever arrangements are appropriate for maintaining effective contact with international organizations of sugar producers, traders and manufacturers. Article 15\nRelationship with the Common Fund for Commodities\n1. The Organization shall take full advantage of the facilities of the Common Fund for Commodities. 2. In respect of the implementation of any project under paragraph 1 of this Article, the Organization shall not act as an executing agency, nor incur any financial obligation for guarantees given by individual Members or other entities. No Member shall be responsible by reason of its membership in the Organiz ation for any liability arising from borrowing or lending by any other Member or entity in connection with such projects. Article 16\nAdmission of observers\n1. The Council may invite any non member State to attend any of its meetings as an observer. 2. The Council may also invite any of the organizations referred to in Article 14, paragraph 1, to attend any of its meetings as an observer. Article 17\nQuorum for the Council\nThe quorum for any meeting of the Council shall be the presence of more than two thirds of all Members, the Members thus present holding at least two thirds of the total votes of all Members under Article 11 as determined under Article 25. If there is no quorum on the day appointed for the opening of any Council session, or if in the course of any Council session there is no quorum at three successive meetings, the Council shall be convened seven days later; at that time, and throughout the remainder of that session, the quorum shall be the presence of more than half of all Members, the Members thus present representing more than half of the total votes of all Members under Article 11 as determined under Article 25. Representation in accordance with Article 12, paragraph 2, shall be considered as presence. CHAPTER V\n\nADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE\n\nArticle 18\nComposition of the Administrative Committee\n1. The Administrative Committee shall consist of 18 members. Ten shall, in principle, be the 10 largest financial contributing Members in each year, and 8 members shall be elected from the remaining Membership of the Council. 2. If one or more of the 10 largest financial contributing Members in each year does not wish to be automatically appointed to the Administrative Committee, the shortfall in membership shall be made good by appointing the next largest financial contributing Member or Members willing to serve. When those 10 members of the Administrative Committee have thus been appointed, the other 8 members of the Committee shall be elected from the remaining Membership of the Council. 3. The election of the additional 8 members shall take place each year on the basis of votes under Article 11 as determined under Article 25. The Members appointed to the Administrative Committee under the provisions of paragraphs 1 or 2 of this article shall not be entitled to vote in this election. 4. No Member shall be eligible to sit on the Administrative Committee unless it has paid its contributions in full in accordance with Article 26. 5. Each member of the Administrative Committee shall appoint one representative and may appoint in addition one or more alternates and advisers. In addition, all Members of the Council shall be eligible to attend this Committee as observers and may be invited to speak. 6. The Administrative Committee shall elect its chairman and vice-chairman for each year. The chairman shall not have the right to vote and may be re-elected. In the absence of the chairman, the duties of the post shall be carried out by the vice-chairman. 7. The Administrative Committee shall normally meet three times a year. 8. The Administrative Committee shall meet at the headquarters of the Organization, unless it decides otherwise. If any Member invites the Administrative Committee to meet elsewhere than at the headquarters of the Organization, and the Administrative Committee agrees so to do, that Member shall pay the additional costs involved. Article 19\nElection to the Administrative Committee\n1. The Members selected from among the largest financial contributing Members in each year under the procedure in paragraphs 1 or 2 of Article 18 shall be appointed to the Administrative Committee. 2. The election of the additional 8 members of the Administrative Committee shall take place in the Council. Each Member eligible pursuant to the provisions of Article 18, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, shall cast all the votes to which it is entitled under Article 11 as determined under Article 25 for a single candidate. A Member may cast for another candidate any votes which it exercises pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 2. The 8 candidates receiving the largest number of votes shall be elected. 3. If a member of the Administrative Committee is suspended from the exercise of its voting rights under any of the relevant provisions of this Agreement, each Member which has voted for it or assigned its votes to it in accordance with this article may, during such time as that suspension is in force, assign its votes to any other member of the Committee. 4. If a Member appointed to the Committee under the provisions of paragraphs 1 or 2 of Article 18 ceases to be a Member of the Organization, it shall be replaced by the next largest financial contributing Member willing to serve and, if necessary, an election shall be held to select an additional elected member of the Committee. If a Member elected to the Committee ceases to be a Member of the Organization, an election shall be held to replace that Member on the Committee. Any Member which voted for or assigned its votes to the Member which has ceased to be a Member of the Organization, and which does not vote for the Member elected to fill the vacancy on the Committee, may assign its votes to another member of the Committee. 5. In special circumstances, and after consultation with the member of the Administrative Committee for which it voted or to which it assigned its votes in accordance with the provisions of this article, a Member may withdraw its votes from that member for the remainder of the year. That Member may then assign these votes to another member of the Administrative Committee but may not withdraw these votes from that other member for the remainder of that year. The member of the Administrative Committee from which the votes have been withdrawn shall retain its seat on the Administrative Committee for the remainder of that year. Any action taken pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph shall become effective after the Chairman of the Administrative Committee has been informed in writing thereof. Article 20\nDelegation of powers by the Council to the Administrative Committee\n1. The Council may, by special vote, delegate to the Administrative Committee the exercise of any or all of its powers, other than the following:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nlocation of the headquarters of the Organization under Article 3, paragraph 2;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nappointment of the Executive Director and any senior official under Article 23;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nadoption of the administrative budget and assessment of contributions under Article 25;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nany request to the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to convene a negotiating conference under Article 35, paragraph 2;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(e)\n\n\nrecommendation of an amendment under Article 44;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(f)\n\n\nextension or termination of this Agreement under Article 45. 2. The Council may at any time revoke the delegation of any power to the Administrative Committee. Article 21\nVoting procedure and decisions of the Administrative Committee\n1. Each member of the Administrative Committee shall be entitled to cast the number of votes received by it under Article 19, and cannot divide these votes. 2. Any decision taken by the Administrative Committee shall require the same majority as that decision would require if taken by the Council and shall be reported to the Council. 3. Any Member shall have the right of appeal to the Council, under such conditions as the Council may prescribe in its rules of procedure, against any decision of the Administrative Committee. Article 22\nQuorum for the Administrative Committee\nThe quorum for any meeting of the Administrative Committee shall be the presence of more than half of all members of the Committee, the members thus present representing at least two thirds of the total votes of all members of the Committee. CHAPTER VI\n\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND STAFF\n\nArticle 23\nExecutive Director and staff\n1. The Council shall appoint the Executive Director by special vote. The terms of appointment of the Executive Director shall be fixed by the Council. 2. The Executive Director shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization and shall be responsible for the performance of the duties devolving upon him in the administration of this Agreement. 3. The Council, after consulting the Executive Director, shall by special vote appoint any senior official on such terms as it shall determine. 4. The Executive Director shall appoint other members of the staff in accordance with regulations and decisions of the Council. 5. The Council, in accordance with Article 8, shall adopt rules and regulations embodying the fundamental conditions of service and the basic rights, duties and obligations of all members of the Secretariat. 6. Neither the Executive Director nor any member of the staff shall have any financial interest in the sugar industry or sugar trade. 7. Neither the Executive Director nor any member of the staff shall seek or receive instructions regarding their duties under this Agreement from any Member or from any authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization. Each Member shall respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Executive Director and staff and shall not seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities. CHAPTER VII\n\nFINANCE\n\nArticle 24\nExpenses\n1. The expenses of delegations to the Council, the Administrative Committee or any of the committees of the Council or of the Administrative Committee shall be met by the Members concerned. 2. The expenses necessary for the administration of this Agreement shall be met by annual contributions from Members, assessed in accordance with Article 25. If, however, a Member requests special services, the Council may require that Member to pay for them. 3. Appropriate accounts shall be kept for the administration of this Agreement. Article 25\nAdoption of the administrative budget and contributions of Members\n1. For the purpose of this article Members shall hold 2\u00a0000 votes. 2. (a)\n\n\nEach Member shall hold the number of votes specified in the annex, which shall be adjusted in accordance with sub-paragraph (d) below;\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nno Member shall hold fewer than six votes;\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nthere shall be no fractional votes. Rounding shall be permitted in the process of calculation and to ensure that the full number of votes is allocated;\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nvotes in the annex which are not taken up at the time of the entry into force of this Agreement shall be apportioned among individual Members, other than those holding six votes in the annex. The unallocated votes shall be distributed in the proportion that the number of their votes in the annex bears to the total number of votes of all Members holding more than six votes. 3. Votes shall be revised on an annual basis according to the following procedure:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\neach year, including the year of entry into force of this Agreement, at the time of the publication of the Sugar Year Book by the International Sugar Organization, a composite tonnage basis shall be calculated for each Member which shall comprise:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\n35 per cent of that Member's exports to the free market\nplus\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\n15 per cent of that Member's total exports under special arrangements\nplus\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\n35 per cent of that Member's free market imports\nplus\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\n15 per cent of that Member's total imports under special arrangements. The data used to calculate the composite tonnage basis of each Member shall be, for each category above, the average of that category for the highest three of the four last years published in the most recent edition of the Organization's Sugar Year Book. The share of each Member in the total of all Member's composite tonnage bases shall be calculated by the Executive Director. All the above data will be distributed to Members at the time that the calculations are made;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nFor the second and subsequent years after the entry into force of this Agreement, the votes of each Member shall be adjusted by the change in their share in the total of all Member's composite tonnage bases from that for the same membership for the previous year;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nMembers holding six votes shall not be subject to an upward adjustment under the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) above unless their share of the total of all Member's composite tonnage bases exceeds 0,3 per cent. 4. In the event of the accession of a Member or Members after the entry into force of this Agreement, their votes shall be determined according to the Annex as adjusted in the light of paragraphs 2 and 3 above. If the acceding Member or Members are not listed in the annex of this Agreement, the Council shall decide the number of votes to be allocated to that Member or Members. Following the acceptance by the acceding Member or Members not listed in the annex of the number of votes allocated by the Council, the votes of existing Members shall be re-calculated so that the total of votes remains at 2\u00a0000. 5. In the event of the withdrawal of a Member or Members, the votes of the withdrawing Member or Members shall be redistributed to the remaining Members in proportion to their share in the total of all remaining Member votes so that the total of the votes of all Members remains at 2\u00a0000. 6. Transitional arrangements:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nThe following provisions apply only to Members of the International Sugar Agreement, 1987, as of 31 December 1992 and are limited to the first two calendar years after the entry into force of this Agreement (that is up to 31 December 1994). (b)\n\n\nThe total number of votes allocated to each Member in 1993 shall not exceed 1,33 multiplied by that Member's votes in 1992 under the International Sugar Agreement, 1987, and in 1994 shall not exceed 1,66 multiplied by that Member's votes in 1992 under the International Sugar Agreement, 1987. (c)\n\n\nFor the purpose of establishing the contribution per vote, votes not taken up due to the application of paragraph 6 (b) above shall not be redistributed to other Members. Hence, the contribution per vote will be determined on the basis of the reduced number of overall votes. 7. The provisions of Article 26, paragraph 2, relating to the suspension of voting rights for non fulfillment of obligations, shall not apply to this article. 8. During the second half of each year, the Council shall adopt the administrative budget of the Organization for the following year and shall determine the per vote contribution of Members required to meet that budget, in the first two years after taking into account the provisions of paragraph 6 of this article. 9. The contribution of each Member to the administrative budget shall be calculated by multiplying the per vote contribution by the number of votes held by it under this article, as follows:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nfor those which are Members at the time of the final adoption of the administrative budget, the number of votes which they then hold;\nand\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nfor those which become Members after the adoption of the administrative budget, the number of votes which they receive at the time of taking up membership, adjusted in proportion to the remainder of the period covered by the budget or budgets; assessments made upon other Members shall not be altered. 10. If this Agreement enters into force more than eight months before the beginning of its first full year, the Council shall at its first session adopt an administrative budget covering the period up to the commencement of the first full year. Otherwise, the first administrative budget shall cover both the initial period and the first full year. 11. The Council may, by special vote, take such measure as it might deem appropriate in order to mitigate the effects on Member's contributions resulting from a possibly limited membership at the time of the adoption of the administrative budget for the first year of this Agreement or from any major decrease of membership thereafter. Article 26\nPayment of contributions\n1. Members shall pay their contributions to the administrative budget for each year in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures. Contributions to the administrative budget for each year shall be payable in freely convertible currencies and shall become due on the first day of that year; contributions of Members in respect of the year in which they join the Organization shall be due on the date on which they become Members. 2. If, at the end of four months following the date on which its contribution is due in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, a Member has not paid its full contribution to the administrative budget, the Executive Director shall request the Member to make payment as quickly as possible. If, at the expiration of two months after the request of the Executive Director, the Member has still not paid its contribution, its voting rights in the Council and in the Administrative Committee shall be suspended until such time as it has made full payment of the contribution. 3. The Council may decide, by special vote, that a Member with two years contributions unpaid shall cease to enjoy the rights of membership and/or cease to be assessed for budgetary purposes. It shall remain liable to meet any other of its financial obligations under this Agreement. By payment of the arrears the Member will regain the rights of membership. Any payments made by Members in arrears will be credited first to those arrears, rather than to current contributions. Article 27\nAudit and publication of accounts\nAs soon as possible after the close of each year, the financial statements of the Organization for that year, certified by an independent auditor, shall be presented to the Council for approval and publication. CHAPTER VIII\n\nGENERAL UNDERTAKINGS OF MEMBERS\n\nArticle 28\nUndertakings by Members\nMembers undertake to adopt such measures as are necessary to enable them to fulfil their obligations under this Agreement and fully to cooperate with one another in securing the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement. Article 29\nLabour standards\nMembers shall ensure that fair labour standards are maintained in their respective sugar industries and, as far as possible, shall endeavour to improve the standards of living of agricultural and industrial workers in the various branches of sugar production and of growers of sugar cane and sugar beet. Article 30\nEnvironmental aspects\nMembers shall give due consideration to environmental aspects in all stages of sugar production. Article 31\nFinancial liability of Members\nEach Member's financial liability to the Organization and to other Members is limited to the extent of its obligations concerning contributions to the administrative budgets adopted by the Council under this Agreement. CHAPTER IX\n\nINFORMATION AND STUDIES\n\nArticle 32\nInformation and studies\n1. The Organization shall act as a centre for the collection and publication of statistical information and studies on world production, prices, exports and imports, consumption and stocks of sugar (including both raw and refined sugar as appropriate) and other sweeteners, as well as taxes on sugar and other sweeteners. 2. Members undertake to supply within the time which may be prescribed in the rules of procedure all available statistics and information as may be identified in those rules as necessary to enable the Organization to discharge its functions under this Agreement. Should this become necessary, the Organization shall use such relevant information as may be available to it from other sources. No information shall be published by the Organization which might serve to identify the operations of persons or companies producing, processing or marketing sugar. Article 33\nMarket evaluation, consumption and statistics\n1. The Council shall establish a Committee on Sugar Market Evaluation, Consumption and Statistics, composed of all Members, under the chairmanship of the Executive Director. 2. The Committee shall keep under continuous review matters relating to the world economy of sugar and other sweeteners and shall apprise Members of the outcome of its deliberations, for which purpose it shall hold meetings, normally twice a year. In its review, the Committee shall take account of all relevant information gathered by the Organization pursuant to Article 32. 3. The Committee shall undertake work in the following areas:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\npreparation of sugar statistics and statistical analysis of sugar production, consumption, stocks, international trade and prices;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nanalysis of market behaviour and factors which affect it, with special reference to participation of developing countries in world trade;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nanalysis of demand for sugar, including the effects of the use of any form of natural and artificial substitutes for sugar on world trade in, and consumption of, sugar;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nother issues as approved by the Council. 4. Each year the Council shall consider a draft forward work programme, with estimated resource requirements, prepared by the Executive Director. CHAPTER X\n\nRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT\n\nArticle 34\nResearch and development\nIn order to achieve the objectives set out in Article 1, the Council may assist both in scientific research and development in the sugar economy and in the dissemination of the results obtained in this field. To this end, the Council may cooperate with international organizations and research institutions on condition that no additional financial obligations are incurred by the Council. CHAPTER XI\n\nPREPARATIONS FOR A NEW AGREEMENT\n\nArticle 35\nPreparations for a new Agreement\n1. The Council may study the feasibility of negotiating a new international sugar agreement, including a possible agreement with economic provisions, and report to the Members and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate. 2. The Council may, as soon as it considers appropriate, request the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to convene a negotiating conference. CHAPTER XII\n\nFINAL PROVISIONS\n\nArticle 36\nDepositary\nThe Secretary-General of the United Nations is hereby designated as the depositary of this Agreement. Article 37\nSignature\nThis Agreement shall be open for signature at the United Nations headquarters from 1 May until 31 December 1992 by any Government invited to the United Nations Sugar Conference, 1992. Article 38\nRatification, acceptance and approval\n1. This Agreement shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by the signatory Governments in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures. 2. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the depositary not later than 31 December 1992. The Council may, however, grant extensions of time to signatory Governments which are unable to deposit their instruments by that date. Article 39\nNotification of provisional application\n1. A signatory Government which intends to ratify, accept or approve this Agreement or a Government for which the Council has established conditions for accession but which has not yet been able to deposit its instrument may, at any time, notify the depositary that it will apply this Agreement provisionally either when it enters into force in accordance with Article 40 or, if it is already in force, at a specified date. 2. A Government which has notified under paragraph 1 of this Article that it will apply this Agreement either when it enters into force or, if it is already in force, at a specified date shall, from that time, be a provisional Member until it deposits its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and thus becomes a Member\nArticle 40\nEntry into force\n1. This Agreement shall enter into force definitively on 1 January 1993, or on any date thereafter if, by that date instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession have been deposited on behalf of Governments holding 60 per cent of the votes in accordance with the distribution established in the annex to this Agreement. 2. If, by 1 January 1993, this Agreement has not entered into force in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article, it shall enter into force provisionally if by that date instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval or notifications of provisional application have been deposited on behalf of Governments satisfying the percentage requirements of paragraph 1 of this article. 3. If, by 1 January 1993, the required percentages for entry into force of this Agreement in accordance with paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 of this Article are not met, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall invite the Governments on whose behalf instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval or notifications of provisional application have been deposited to decide whether this Agreement shall enter into force definitively or provisionally among themselves, in whole or in part, on such date as they may determine. If this Agreement has entered into force provisionally in accordance with this paragraph, it shall subsequently enter into force definitively upon fulfilment of the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of this article without the necessity of a further decision. 4. For a Government on whose behalf an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession or a notification of provisional application is deposited after the entry into force of this Agreement in accordance with paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of this Article, the instrument or notification shall take effect on the date of deposit and, with regard to notification of provisional application, in accordance with the provisions of Article 39, paragraph 1. Article 41\nAccession\nThis Agreement shall be open to accession by the Governments of all States upon conditions established by the Council. Upon accession, the State concerned shall be deemed to be listed in the annex to this Agreement, together with its votes as laid down in the conditions of accession. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the depositary. Instruments of accession shall state that the Government accepts all the conditions established by the Council. Article 42\nWithdrawal\n1. Any Member may withdraw from this Agreement at any time after the entry into force of this Agreement by giving written notice of withdrawal to the depositary. The Member shall simultaneously inform in writing the Council of the action it has taken. 2. Withdrawal under this Article shall be effective 30 days after the receipt of the notice by the depositary. Article 43\nSettlement of accounts\n1. The Council shall determine any settlement of accounts which it finds equitable with a Member which has withdrawn from this Agreement or has otherwise ceased to be Party to this Agreement. The Organization shall retain any amounts already paid by such Member. Such Member shall be bound to pay any amounts due from it to the Organization. 2. Upon termination of this Agreement, any Member referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not be entitled to any share of the proceeds of the liquidation or the other assets of the Organization; nor shall it be burdened with any part of the deficit, if any, of the Organization. Article 44\nAmendment\n1. The Council may, by special vote, recommend to the Members an amendment of this Agreement. The Council may fix a time after which each Member shall notify the depositary of its acceptance of the amendment. The amendment shall become effective 100 days after at least two thirds of the total votes of all Members under Article 11 as determined under Article 25, or on such later date as the Council may have determined by special vote. The Council may fix a time within which each Member shall notify the depositary of its acceptance of the amendment and, if the amendment has not become effective by such time, it shall be considered withdrawn. The Council shall provide the depositary with the information necessary to determine whether the notifications of acceptance received are sufficient to make the amendment effective. 2. Any Member on behalf of which notification of acceptance of an amendment has not been made by the date on which such amendment becomes effective shall, as of that date, cease to be Party to this Agreement, unless such Member has satisfied the Council that acceptance could not be secured in time owing to difficulties in completing its constitutional procedures and the Council decides to extend for such Member the period fixed for acceptance. Such Member shall not be bound by the amendment before it has notified its acceptance thereof. Article 45\nDuration, extension and termination\n1. This Agreement shall remain in force until 31 December 1995, unless extended under paragraph 2 of this Article or terminated earlier under paragraph 3 of this Article. 2. The Council may, by special vote, extend this Agreement beyond 31 December 1995 for successive periods, not exceeding two years on each occasion. Any Member which does not accept any such extension of this Agreement shall so inform the Council in writing and shall cease to be a Party to this Agreement from the beginning of the period of extension. 3. The Council may at any time decide, by special vote, to terminate this Agreement with effect from such date and subject to such conditions as it may determine. 4. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Organization shall continue in being for such time as may be required to carry out its liquidation and shall have such powers and exercise such funcions as may be necessary for that purpose. 5. The Council shall notify the depositary of any action taken under paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of this Article. Article 46\nTransitional measures\n1. Where in accordance with the International Sugar Agreement, 1987, the consequences of anything done, to be done or omitted to be done would, for the purposes of the operation of that Agreement, have taken effect in a subsequent year, those consequences shall have the same effect under this Agreement as if the provisions of the 1987 Agreement had continued in effect for those purposes. 2. The administrative budget of the Organization for 1993 shall be provisionally approved by the Council under the International Sugar Agreement, 1987, at its last regular session in 1992, subject to final approval by the Council under this Agreement at its first session in 1993. In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have affixed their signatures under this Agreement on the dates indicated. Done at Geneva, this twentieth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and ninety two. The texts of this Agreement in the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish languages shall be equally authentic. ANNEX\nAllocation of votes for the purposes of Article 25\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAlgeria\n\n\n38\n\n\n\n\nArgentina\n\n\n22\n\n\n\n\nAustralia\n\n\n117\n\n\n\n\nAustria\n\n\n14\n\n\n\n\nBarbados\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nBelarus\n\n\n11\n\n\n\n\nBelize\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nBolivia\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nBrazil\n\n\n94\n\n\n\n\nBulgaria\n\n\n18\n\n\n\n\nCameroon\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nColombia\n\n\n18\n\n\n\n\nCongo\u00a0(1)\n\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nCosta Rica\u00a0(1)\n\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nC\u00f4te d'Ivoire\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nCuba\n\n\n151\n\n\n\n\nDominican Republic\n\n\n23\n\n\n\n\nEcuador\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nEgypt\n\n\n37\n\n\n\n\nEl Salvador\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nEEC\n\n\n332\n\n\n\n\nFiji\n\n\n12\n\n\n\n\nFinland\n\n\n16\n\n\n\n\nGhana\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nGuatemala\n\n\n16\n\n\n\n\nGuyana\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nHonduras\u00a0(1)\n\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nHungary\n\n\n9\n\n\n\n\nIndia\n\n\n38\n\n\n\n\nIndonesia\n\n\n18\n\n\n\n\nJamaica\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nJapan\n\n\n176\n\n\n\n\nMadagascar\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nMalawi\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nMauritius\n\n\n15\n\n\n\n\nMexico\n\n\n49\n\n\n\n\nMorocco\n\n\n14\n\n\n\n\nNicaragua\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nNorway\n\n\n19\n\n\n\n\nPanama\u00a0(1)\n\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nPapua New Guinea\u00a0(1)\n\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nPeru\n\n\n9\n\n\n\n\nPhilippines\n\n\n12\n\n\n\n\nRepublic of Korea\n\n\n59\n\n\n\n\nRomania\n\n\n18\n\n\n\n\nRussian Federation\n\n\n135\n\n\n\n\nSouth Africa\n\n\n46\n\n\n\n\nSwaziland\n\n\n13\n\n\n\n\nSweden\n\n\n15\n\n\n\n\nSwitzerland\n\n\n18\n\n\n\n\nThailand\n\n\n85\n\n\n\n\nTurkey\n\n\n21\n\n\n\n\nUganda\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nUnited Republic of Tanzania\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nUnited States of America\n\n\n178\n\n\n\n\nUruguay\n\n\n6\n\n\n\n\nZimbabwe\n\n\n8\n\n\n\n\nTotal\n\n\n2\u00a0000\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(1)\u00a0\u00a0Not participating in the United Nations Sugar Conference, 1992, but included because the country is a Member of the International Sugar Organization established by the International Sugar Agreement, 1987"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0d282345-c003-45af-8c01-5fbc390c7fb5", "title": "Operations of the European Community concerning small and medium-sized enterprises : Practical handbook.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DG XXIII \u2013 Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives,European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "action programme,aid programme,financial intervention,intervention policy", "workIds": "PUB_CT7191647", "eurovoc_concepts": ["action programme", "aid programme", "financial intervention", "intervention policy"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0d282345-c003-45af-8c01-5fbc390c7fb5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/753fe793-c13b-4465-91e9-cc0f58b59d75", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 706/92 of 20 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2167/83 laying down detailed rules for the supply of milk and certain milk products to schoolchildren", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "delivery,educational institution,milk,milk product", "workIds": "celex:31992R0706,oj:JOL_1992_075_R_0031_036", "eurovoc_concepts": ["delivery", "educational institution", "milk", "milk product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/753fe793-c13b-4465-91e9-cc0f58b59d75", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/619fd379-d9dd-4290-8af8-e0d563f12673", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 704/92 of 20 March 1992 fixing the export refunds on beef and veal and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "agricultural product nomenclature,beef,export refund,meat product,preserved product", "workIds": "celex:31992R0704,oj:JOL_1992_075_R_0018_034", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural product nomenclature", "beef", "export refund", "meat product", "preserved product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/619fd379-d9dd-4290-8af8-e0d563f12673", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0b810683-58e5-4574-8213-7ce1fcbe2aa5", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) on the common organizaton of the market in fishery products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "aquaculture,common organisation of markets,fishery product,market intervention,marketing standard,trade policy", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0079,comnat:COM_1992_0079_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_134_R_0001_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["aquaculture", "common organisation of markets", "fishery product", "market intervention", "marketing standard", "trade policy"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0b810683-58e5-4574-8213-7ce1fcbe2aa5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3d0bc83e-162e-4002-bbce-aeefaefd115c", "title": "Commission Directive 92/18/EEC of 20 March 1992 modifying the Annex to Council Directive 81/852/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical, pharmacotoxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the texting of veterinary medicinal products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "approximation of laws,marketing standard,testing,veterinary medicinal product,veterinary medicine", "workIds": "celex:31992L0018,oj:JOL_1992_097_R_0001_004", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "marketing standard", "testing", "veterinary medicinal product", "veterinary medicine"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3d0bc83e-162e-4002-bbce-aeefaefd115c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/13b5d89f-33c8-42d1-9cc1-4b9da5ebfea5", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 705/92 of 20 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 606/86 laying down detailed rules for applying the supplementary trade mechanism to milk products imported into Spain from the Community of Ten and Portugal", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "EU Member State,Spain,import,milk product,supplementary trade mechanism", "workIds": "celex:31992R0705,oj:JOL_1992_075_R_0029_035", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU Member State", "Spain", "import", "milk product", "supplementary trade mechanism"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/13b5d89f-33c8-42d1-9cc1-4b9da5ebfea5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3830f640-b9ce-4262-a0ca-2f7753d4a2e8", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 594/91 of 4 March 1991 in order to speed up the phasing-out of substances that deplete the ozone layer", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "halogen,ozone,protocol to an agreement,quantitative restriction,stratospheric pollution", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0106,comnat:COM_1992_0106_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_090_R_0016_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["halogen", "ozone", "protocol to an agreement", "quantitative restriction", "stratospheric pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3830f640-b9ce-4262-a0ca-2f7753d4a2e8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(92)106 final \n\nBrussels, 20 March 1992 \n\nlMi \u2022'' \n\n8*1-. ': \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 594/91 of 4 March 1991 \n\nIn order to speed up the phasing-out of \n\nsubstances that deplete the ozone layer \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\fEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 594/91 of 4 March 1991 on substances that \ndeplete the ozone layer^1) provides for quantitative restrictions on \nthe production and consumption of chlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 \nand 115, other fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon \ntetrachloride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. It is based on the Montreal \nProtocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to which the \nMember States and the European Community are Parties. The Scientific Evaluation Group of the United Nations Environment \nProgramme (UNEP) found the hole in the ozone layer in the Antarctic in \n1991 to be as deep and extensive as the holes observed in 1987, 1989 \nand 1990. For the first time, observations in the Antarctic confirmed \nthat the loss of ozone coincides with an increase in ultraviolet \nradiation at ground level. Moreover, the stratospheric ozone layer is \nbeing depleted more rapidly than expected and ozone losses are now \nbeing observed over densely populated areas of Europe and North \nAmerica. The satellite-mounted TOMS spectrometer measured ozone losses \nfrom December to March of - 5. 6% \u00b1 3. 5% per decade over the period 1979 \nto 1991 at a latitude of 45* North. The concentration of chlorine in \nthe stratosphere is expected to increase from the present level of 3. 3 \nppmv (parts per million volume) to 4. 1 ppmv in the year 2000. This \nincrease will occur even if all the parties apply the revised Protocol \n(London, 1990). The UNEP technological and economic evaluation group concluded that it \nis technically feasible to phase out ozone depleting substances sooner \nthan the deadline imposed by the revised Protocol (London, 1990) and by-\nRegulation (EEC) No 594/91. In the developed countries, consumption of \npractically all chlorofluorocarbons and halons could be eliminated by \n1995-97, consumption of 1 ,1 ,1-trichloroethane as early as 1995, and by \nthe year 2000 at the latest, and consumption of carbon tetrachloride \nfor the vast majority of applications by 1995, with final elimination \nby 1997. On the basis of the convincing scientific and technical data produced \nby the UNEP evaluation procedure, the Commission is submitting to the \nEuropean Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee for opinion \nand to the Council for adoption a proposal for a Regulation amending \nRegulation (EEC) No 594/91 of 4 March 1991 in order to speed up the \nphasing-out of ozone depleting substances. (1 ) 0J No L 67, 14. 3. 91, p. 1. \\ \n\n\fCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No. /. of \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 594/91 of 4 March 1991 \n\nin order to speed up the phasing-out of \n\nsubstances that deplete the ozone layer \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \nand in particular Article 130s thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,<1) \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Par Iiament, <2) \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee,^3^ \n\nWhereas, according to the latest scientific knowledge, the ozone layer is \nnot reforming over the Antarctic; whereas depletion of the ozone layer \nover the Northern hemisphere is more extensive than was previously \ngenerally accepted; \n\nWhereas scientific studies forecast continued depletion of the ozone \nlayer until the year 2005, unless the production and consumption of fully \nhalogenated chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride and \n1,1,1-trichloroethane is brought to an end in the very near future. Whereas, except for certain essential uses, it is technically possible to \nphase out all consumption of chlorofluorocarbons, halons, 1,1,1-\ntrichloroethane and, for most applications, carbon tetrachloride by the \nend of 1995; \n\nWhereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 594/91 provides for controls on \nsubstances that deplete the ozone layer; \n\nWhereas, in the light in particular of recent scientific knowledge, it is \nappropriate, in general, to introduce stricter control measures than \nthose provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 594/91; \n\n(1) 0J No. (2) 0J No L \n(3) OJ No L \n\n\fHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\n- 2 -\n\nArt icle 1 \n\nControl of the production and consumption of \nchlorofluorocarbons 11, 12, 113, 114 and 115 \n\nThe following changes are hereby made to Articles 10(1) and 11(1) of and \nAnnex II to Regulation (EEC) No 594/91: \n\nin the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(1), \", and \nin the following 12-month period,\" is deleted; \n\nthe third indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) is deleted; \n\nin the fourth indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(1), \"1996\" \nis replaced by \"1994, and in the following 12-month period\"; \n\nthe fifth indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) is deleted; \n\nin the sixth indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(1), \n\"30 June 1997\" is replaced by \"31 December 1995\"; \n\nin the second subparagraph of Article 10(1), \"30 June 1997\" is replaced \nby \"31 December 1995\"; \n\nthe second to sixth indents of the first subparagraph and the second \nsubparagraph of Article 11(1) are amended in the same way as the \ncorresponding indents and subparagraphs of Article 10(1); \n\nin Annex II, the calculated level of the quantitative limits on imports \nof substances in Group I is fixed at 348 tonnes for each of the years \n1994 and \ncease on \nimports of \n1995; \n31 December 1995 at the latest. these substances \n\nshall \n\nArt icle 2 \n\nControl of the production and consumption of \nother fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons \n\nThe following changes are hereby made to Articles 10(2) and 11(2) of and \nAnnex II to Regulation (EEC) No 594/91: \n\nin the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(2), \"each 12-\nmonth period thereafter\" is replaced by \"the following 12-month period\"; \n\nthe second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(2) is deleted; \n\nin the third indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(2), \"1996\" is \nreplaced by \"1994, and in the following 12-month period\"; \n\nthe fourth indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(2) is deleted; \n\n4 \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nin the fifth indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(2), \n\"30 June 1997\" is replaced by \"31 December 1995\"; \n\nin the second subparagraph of Article 10(2), \"30 June 1997\" is replaced \nby \"31 December 1995\"; \n\nthe first to fifth indents of the first subparagraph and the second \nsubparagraph of Article 11(2) are amended in the same way as the \ncorresponding indents and subparagraphs of Article 10(2); \n\nin Annex II, the calculated level of the quantitative limits on imports \nof substances in Group II is fixed at 15% of the calculated level of \nimports in 1989 for each of the years 1994 and 1995; imports of these \nsubstances shall cease on 31 December 1995 at the latest. Art icle 3 \n\nControl of the production and consumption of halons \n\nThe following changes are hereby made to Articles 10(3) and 11(3) of and \nAnnex II to Regulation (EEC) No 594/91: \n\nin the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(3), \"each 12-\nmonth period thereafter\" is replaced by \"the following 12-month period\"; \n\nin the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(3), \"1995, \nand in each 12-month period thereafter\" is replaced by \"1994, and in the \nfollowing 12-month period\", and \"50%\" is replaced by \"15%\"; \n\nin the third indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(3), \"1999\" is \nreplaced by \"1995\"; \n\nin the second subparagraph of Article 10(3), \"2000\" is replaced by \n\"1996\"; \n\nthe first to third indents of the first subparagraph and the second \nsubparagraph of Article 11(3) are amended in the same way as the \ncorresponding indents and subparagraphs of Article 10(3); \n\nin Annex II, the calculated level of the quantitative limits on imports \nof substances in Group III is fixed at 350 tonnes for each of the years \n1994 and \n1995; \n31 December 1995. these substances \n\nimports of \n\ncease on \n\nshall \n\nArt icle 4 \n\nControl of the production and consumption of \ncarbon tetrachloride \n\nThe following changes are hereby made to Articles 10(4) and 11(4) of and \nAnnex II to Regulation (EEC) No 594/91: \n\nin the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(4), \"each 12-\nmonth period thereafter\" is replaced by \"the following 12-month period\"; \n\n% \n\n\f- 3 -\n\nin the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(4), \"1995, \nand in each 12-month period thereafter\" is replaced by \"1994, and in the \nfollowing 12-month period\"; \n\nin the third indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(4), \"1997\" is \nreplaced by \"1995\"; \n\nin the second subparagraph of Article 10(4), \"1998\" is replaced by \n\"1996\"; \n\nthe first to third indents of the first subparagraph and the second \nsubparagraph of Article 11(4) are amended in the same way as the \ncorresponding indents and subparagraphs of Article 10(4); \n\nin Annex II, the calculated level of the quantitative limits on imports \nof the substance in Group IV is fixed at 15% of the calculated level of \nimports in 1989 for each of the years 1994 and 1995; imports of these \nsubstances shall cease on 31 December 1995 at the latest. Art icle 5 \n\nControl of the production and consumption of \n1,1,1-tr ichloroethane \n\nThe following changes are hereby made to Articles 10(5) and 11(5) of and \nAnnex II to Regulation (EEC) No 594/91: \n\nin the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(5), \"each 12-\nmonth period thereafter\" is replaced by \"the following 12-month period\"; \n\nin the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(5), \"1995, \nand in each 12-month period thereafter\" is replaced by \"1994, and in the \nfollowing 12-month period\", and \"70%\" is replaced by \"15%\"; \n\nthe third indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(5) is deleted; \n\nin the fourth indent of the first subparagraph of Article 10(5), \"2004\" \nis replaced by \"1995\"; \n\na second subparagraph is inserted after the first subparagraph of \nArticle 10(5) as follows: \n\n\"The Commission, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 12, \nshall determine any essential uses of 1 ,1 ,1-trichloroethane which may be \nuntil \npermitted \nafter \nthe \n31 December 2004 at \n1,1,1-\ntrichloroethane which may be produced by each producer for this purpose. Such production shall only be allowed if adequate alternatives or \nrecycled 1 ,1,1-trichloroethane are not available. \"; \n\n31 December 1995 \nand \nand any quantities of \n\nCommunity \nthe \n\nlatest \n\nin \n\nthe first to fourth indents of the first subparagraph of Article 11(5) \nare amended \nin the same way as the corresponding indents of \nArt icle 10(5); \n\n6 \n\n\f- 4 -\n\na second subparagraph is inserted after the first subparagraph of \nArticle 11(5) as follows: \n\n\"The Commission, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 12, \nshall determine any quantities of 1,1,1-trichloroethane that could be \nplaced on the market or used for its own account by each producer after \n31 December 1995 and until 31 December 2004 at the latest for the purpose \nof essent ial uses. \"; \n\nin Annex II, the calculated level of the quantitative limits on imports \nof the substance in Group IV is fixed at 15% of the calculated level of \nimports in 1989 for each of the years 1994 and 1995; imports of these \nsubstances shall cease on 31 December 1995 at the latest. Art icle 6 \n\nEntry into force \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its \npublication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 7 \n\n\f\fISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM (92) 106 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n14 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-116-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42133-9 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nLr2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/490aa3fc-9cd7-4816-8cfa-7da271a4c891", "title": "92/215/EEC: Commission Decision of 20 March 1992 concerning the requirements as regards animal health conditions and veterinary certification for imports of fresh meat from Argentina", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "foot-and-mouth disease,fresh meat,health certificate,health control,meat processing industry", "workIds": "celex:31992D0215,oj:JOL_1992_104_R_0063_045", "eurovoc_concepts": ["foot-and-mouth disease", "fresh meat", "health certificate", "health control", "meat processing industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/490aa3fc-9cd7-4816-8cfa-7da271a4c891", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/80c0f9c4-b9e5-40c3-b908-bfbf62822d9c", "title": "Amended proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE relating to the sulphur content of gasoil", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "air quality,diesel fuel,international standard,pollution control,quality of the environment,sulphur", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0119,comnat:COM_1992_0119_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_120_R_0012_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["air quality", "diesel fuel", "international standard", "pollution control", "quality of the environment", "sulphur"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/80c0f9c4-b9e5-40c3-b908-bfbf62822d9c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3c1969ea-c7e5-4cc6-8ced-212682c796cd", "title": "Employment in Europe 1991.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion,European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "EU Member State,employment policy,employment structure,unemployment,vocational training", "workIds": "PUB_CE7091718", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU Member State", "employment policy", "employment structure", "unemployment", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3c1969ea-c7e5-4cc6-8ced-212682c796cd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ac933042-3d72-411e-b417-689cdc5357a4", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) authorizing management measures relating to imports of live bovine animals", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-20", "subjects": "cattle,import licence,live animal", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0101,comnat:COM_1992_0101_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["cattle", "import licence", "live animal"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ac933042-3d72-411e-b417-689cdc5357a4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(92)101 final \n\nBrussels,2Q March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC^ \n\nauthorizing management measures relating to \nimports of live bovine animals \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\fExplanatory Note \n\nIn the special arrangements for import of live bovine animals \ninto the Community, annexed to the Association Agreement with \nHungary, Poland and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, it is \nstated that: \n\n\"In case forecasts show that imports into the Community may \nexceed 425,000 head for any given year, the Community may take \nsafeguard measures in accordance with regulation (CEE) \nN\u00b0805/68, notwithstanding any other rights given under the \nAgreement. In this context, imports of live bovine animals not covered by \nthe arrangements mentioned in paragraph 1 shall be limited to \nyoung calves with a live weight of not more than 80 kg. such \nimports shall be subject to a management regime in order to \nensure regular supply over the year in question\". Furthermore, in the framework of the Council decision on the 19 92 \n\"Balance sheet\" for young animals for fattening, the Commission \nhas undertaken that total imports of young animals in 1992 will \nnot exceed 425,000 heads. Consequently, for the imports of calves of 80 kg or less a \nmanagement regime should be established ensuring a regular supply \nover the year, taking into account the seasonality of supply and \ndemand. The purpose of the present proposal is to provide the \nlegal basis for such a regime. In practice, the management regime is aiming to constitute a \nsafeguard measure as referred to in the above mentioned \"special \narrangements\" while at the same time trying to avoid a situation \nwhere the real safeguard clause would become operational. As far \nas 1992 is concerned, the safeguard clause as currently being \napplied should be replaced by this new management regime. Finally, consultations have been held with the third country \n(Poland) which in the past has been practically the sole exporter \nof such small calves and no objections to the regime was \nexpressed. h \n\n\fProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No \n\n/92 \n\nof \n\nauthorizing management measures relating to \nimports of live bovine animals \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \n\nHaving regard to council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common \n\norganization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation \n\n(EEC) No 1628/9l(2), and in particular Article 20(2) thereof, \n\nwhereas, as a result of a level of production greatly in surplus and of other \n\nfactors reducing sales, the beef and veal sector is subject to a long-term \n\nimbalance between supply and demand on the Community market, taking into account \n\npossibilities of exports to third countries; whereas, therefore, despite massive \n\nbuying-in into intervention, the price situation on the market is unsatisfactory; \n\nWhereas, in the first half of 1991, the number of veal imports into the Community \n\nthreatened to exceed considerably both the traditional level of annual imports \n\nand the capacity of the Community market to absorb them; whereas, in order to \n\navoid a serious disturbance on the market, the Commission, using its emergency \n\npowers as provided for in Article 21(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68, adopted \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 1023/91 of 24 April 1991 suspending the issuing of import \n\nlicences for live animals of the bovine species(3); \n\n(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 24. (2) OJ No L 150, 15. 6. 1991, p. 16. (3) OJ No L 105, 25. 4. 1991, p. 50. 5> \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nWhereas, in view of the experience acquired in application of the said \n\nArticle 21, it has been found that while avoiding an immediate worsening of the \n\nmarket crisis, the abrupt blockage of all imports resulting from the issuing of \n\nlarge numbers of import licences over a short period cannot guarantee market \n\nsupplies throughout the year in accordance with seasonal requirements; whereas, \n\ntherefore, the Commission should be authorized, by means of a special provision, \n\nto react swiftly to situations threatening to produce serious disturbances on the \n\nmarket by introducing appropriate management measures for that purpose, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\nSince, because of imports, the Community market in beef and veal threatens to be \n\nseriously imbalanced, and in order to avoid the situation referred to in \n\nArticle 21(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68, the Commission may, in accordance \n\nwith the procedure provided for in Article 27 of that Regulation, subject imports \n\nof live bovine animals to appropriate management measures for the appropriate \n\nperiod. Article 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its \n\npublication in the official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all \n\nMember states. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\n4 \n\n\fFINANCIAL STATEMENT \n\n1. BUDGET HEADING: Chapter 21 \n\nArticle 100 \n\n2. TITLE: \n\nDATE: 21. 2. 1992 \n\nAPPROPRIATIONS: ECU 4 636 mi 11 ion \nECU 1 353 mi 11 ion \n\nCouncil Regulation authorizing management measures relating to imports of live bovine animals. 3. LEGAL BASIS: Article 21(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68. 4. AIMS OF PROJECT: \n\nTo ensure suppl ies to the market throughout the year depending on seasonal needs and to authorize the \nCcmnission to respond in good time to situations which may result in serious disturbance of the market \n\n5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS \n\n5. 0 EXPENDITURE \n\n- CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET \n- (REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) \n- NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION \n-OTHER \n\n5. 1 REVENUE \n\n- OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC \n(LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) \n\n- NATIONAL \n\n5. 0. 1 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE \n5. 1. 1 ESTIMATED REVENUE \n\n5. 2 METHOD OF CALCULATION: \n\nPeriod of 12 months \n\nCurrent Financial Year \n1992 \n\nFollowing Financial Year \n1993 \n\np. m. ECU mi 11 ion \n\np. m. ECU mi 11 ion \n\np. m. ECU mi 11 ion \n\np. m. ECU mi 11 ion \n\np. m. ECU mi 11 ion \n\np. m. ECU mi 11 ion \n\n1994 \n\np. m. p. m. 1995 \n\np. m. p. m. 1996 \n\np. m. p. m. 1997 \n\np. m. p. m. 6. 0 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? \n\n6. 1 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? \n\n6. 2 IS A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET NECESSARY? \n\n6. 3 WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY? \n\nOBSERVATIONS: \n\nThe 1992 budget takes account of a osiIing of 425 000 head for imports of Iive animals. YES \n\nNO \n\nNO \n\nNO \n\n4> \n\n\f\fISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 101 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 02 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-110-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42085-5 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \n1^2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0d862e08-a175-4140-8eb1-487af34a39f0", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 557/92 by Mr Henry McCUBBIN to the Commission. Use of historic vehicles on Community roads", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MCCUBBIN", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "combustion gases,motor car,road traffic,roadworthiness tests,vehicle parts", "workIds": "celex:91992E000557", "eurovoc_concepts": ["combustion gases", "motor car", "road traffic", "roadworthiness tests", "vehicle parts"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0d862e08-a175-4140-8eb1-487af34a39f0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9e76a776-3cb6-4963-9d2c-6f4e947f5162", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 565/92 by Mr Madron SELIGMAN to the Commission. Unfair competition for British mushrooms", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SELIGMAN", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "EU aid,Ireland,State aid,United Kingdom,less-favoured region,mushroom-growing,restriction on competition,sectoral aid,sensitive product", "workIds": "celex:91992E000565", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Ireland", "State aid", "United Kingdom", "less-favoured region", "mushroom-growing", "restriction on competition", "sectoral aid", "sensitive product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9e76a776-3cb6-4963-9d2c-6f4e947f5162", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/aff4a249-3a67-461d-b1fb-346d74a53dfe", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 555/92 by Mr G\u00fcnter L\u00dcTTGE to the Commission. EC funds for the district of Weser-Ems (Lower Saxony)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LUETTGE", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "EAGGF,EU aid,European Regional Development Fund,European Social Fund,Lower Saxony,distribution of aid,fund (EU),principle of additionality", "workIds": "celex:91992E000555", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAGGF", "EU aid", "European Regional Development Fund", "European Social Fund", "Lower Saxony", "distribution of aid", "fund (EU)", "principle of additionality"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/aff4a249-3a67-461d-b1fb-346d74a53dfe", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/57bb775e-762e-49fa-a31e-587e5656a824", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 598/92 by Mr S\u00e9rgio RIBEIRO to the Council. Indonesia, East Timor and the events of November 1991", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RIBEIRO", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "East Timor,European political cooperation,Indonesia,UNO,committee of inquiry,human rights,international issue,report,repression", "workIds": "celex:91992E000598", "eurovoc_concepts": ["East Timor", "European political cooperation", "Indonesia", "UNO", "committee of inquiry", "human rights", "international issue", "report", "repression"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/57bb775e-762e-49fa-a31e-587e5656a824", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e193e268-79c4-4c08-b2f6-6efe5e0477a4", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 552/92 by Mr Dimitrios DESSYLAS to the Commission. Greek shipbuilding: 20 000 impending job losses", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DESSYLAS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Greece,State aid,aid for restructuring,industrial restructuring,job cuts,privatisation,shipbuilding", "workIds": "celex:91992E000552", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "State aid", "aid for restructuring", "industrial restructuring", "job cuts", "privatisation", "shipbuilding"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e193e268-79c4-4c08-b2f6-6efe5e0477a4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/67a02910-b727-44b7-95fd-497666a606b8", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 576/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Phaleron Park", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Central Greece,EU financing,Structural Funds,co-financing,green area,storage of waste", "workIds": "celex:91992E000576", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central Greece", "EU financing", "Structural Funds", "co-financing", "green area", "storage of waste"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/67a02910-b727-44b7-95fd-497666a606b8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f202b7e3-e78b-4e03-bc27-91e21858620f", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 581/92 by Mrs Christine CRAWLEY to the Commission. Support for Sickle Cell Anaemia Relief", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CRAWLEY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "competence of the Member States,infectious disease,medical research,public health", "workIds": "celex:91992E000581", "eurovoc_concepts": ["competence of the Member States", "infectious disease", "medical research", "public health"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f202b7e3-e78b-4e03-bc27-91e21858620f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/369b5166-37ee-449b-8d76-68d0ec43f835", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 590/92 by Mr Christos PAPOUTSIS to the Commission. Financial assistance for Member States in view of the revision of the CAP", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PAPOUTSIS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "EU aid,computer applications,management audit,management information system,reform of the CAP", "workIds": "celex:91992E000590", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "computer applications", "management audit", "management information system", "reform of the CAP"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/369b5166-37ee-449b-8d76-68d0ec43f835", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/024f31c6-e223-4acc-9457-ffcec8788272", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 580/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Substances in rubble tips", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Central Greece,environmental protection,health risk,inflammable product,quality of the environment,storage of waste,toxic substance,waste disposal", "workIds": "celex:91992E000580", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central Greece", "environmental protection", "health risk", "inflammable product", "quality of the environment", "storage of waste", "toxic substance", "waste disposal"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/024f31c6-e223-4acc-9457-ffcec8788272", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f3c4226a-f63d-4e61-bee6-03509638122d", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 574/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Cost of keeping livestock", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Greece,Integrated Mediterranean Programmes,animal breeding,animal disease,livestock,livestock farming,maintenance,suspension of aid,veterinary inspection", "workIds": "celex:91992E000574", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "Integrated Mediterranean Programmes", "animal breeding", "animal disease", "livestock", "livestock farming", "maintenance", "suspension of aid", "veterinary inspection"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f3c4226a-f63d-4e61-bee6-03509638122d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9d480b61-8a78-4b5a-81d9-2c4ac1bbfcc5", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 579/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Postal charges for printed matter", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Greece,competence of the Member States,fixing of prices,newspaper,postal charges,postal service,serial publication,tariff preference", "workIds": "celex:91992E000579", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "competence of the Member States", "fixing of prices", "newspaper", "postal charges", "postal service", "serial publication", "tariff preference"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9d480b61-8a78-4b5a-81d9-2c4ac1bbfcc5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c593a0b9-51d8-401a-beaa-f81a2d949694", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 600/92 by Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. Assistance for Cantabria", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Cantabria,EAGGF,EU aid,agro-industry,milk product", "workIds": "celex:91992E000600", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Cantabria", "EAGGF", "EU aid", "agro-industry", "milk product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c593a0b9-51d8-401a-beaa-f81a2d949694", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7046b18d-5603-4157-b063-9d5eb18d5845", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 563/92 by Mr Ernest GLINNE to the Commission. Danger of domestic aerosols", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GLINNE", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "aerosol,approximation of laws,consumer protection,inflammable product,product safety,substitute product", "workIds": "celex:91992E000563", "eurovoc_concepts": ["aerosol", "approximation of laws", "consumer protection", "inflammable product", "product safety", "substitute product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7046b18d-5603-4157-b063-9d5eb18d5845", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2a14a988-d654-40a0-8c70-1c8a35097b86", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 559/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 MENDES BOTA to the Commission. Protocol referred to in Annex XXII to the Fourth Convention of Lom\u00e9", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MENDES BOTA", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "action programme,advance payment,cultural cooperation,foundation,fourth Lom\u00e9 Convention,protocol to an agreement", "workIds": "celex:91992E000559", "eurovoc_concepts": ["action programme", "advance payment", "cultural cooperation", "foundation", "fourth Lom\u00e9 Convention", "protocol to an agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2a14a988-d654-40a0-8c70-1c8a35097b86", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6cc8c642-6ade-4862-a14a-8952b438e860", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 573/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Cotton subsidies", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Greece,cotton,fraud,industrial enterprise,production aid,production control,use of aid", "workIds": "celex:91992E000573", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "cotton", "fraud", "industrial enterprise", "production aid", "production control", "use of aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6cc8c642-6ade-4862-a14a-8952b438e860", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/015e11a9-2397-4205-9b8c-50738b73524d", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 566/92 by Mr Florus WIJSENBEEK to the Commission. Duty-free import of diesel oil", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,WIJSENBEEK", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "commercial vehicle,diesel fuel,excise duty,exemption from customs duties,free movement of goods,quantitative restriction", "workIds": "celex:91992E000566", "eurovoc_concepts": ["commercial vehicle", "diesel fuel", "excise duty", "exemption from customs duties", "free movement of goods", "quantitative restriction"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/015e11a9-2397-4205-9b8c-50738b73524d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ef1a6142-9a38-4c35-8f8b-f58269d4ed28", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 553/92 by Mr Karel DE GUCHT to the Commission. French aid to the Russian Federation", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DE GUCHT,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "France,State aid,USSR,beef,cereals,credit insurance,export aid,export credit,industrial product,restriction on competition", "workIds": "celex:91992E000553", "eurovoc_concepts": ["France", "State aid", "USSR", "beef", "cereals", "credit insurance", "export aid", "export credit", "industrial product", "restriction on competition"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ef1a6142-9a38-4c35-8f8b-f58269d4ed28", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4a481d03-b074-4c3d-8a98-97abb6fbc6fa", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 587/92 by Mr Madron SELIGMAN to the Commission. Safety of passenger-carrying road vehicles", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SELIGMAN", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "bus,carriage of passengers,safety device,technical standard,transport accident,transport safety", "workIds": "celex:91992E000587", "eurovoc_concepts": ["bus", "carriage of passengers", "safety device", "technical standard", "transport accident", "transport safety"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4a481d03-b074-4c3d-8a98-97abb6fbc6fa", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a736318c-498a-4eed-b4c1-44ba3253c881", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 578/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Pindos National Park", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Epirus,engineering structure,environmental impact,forest conservation,hydroelectric development,impact study,protected area,protection of animal life,public works", "workIds": "celex:91992E000578", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Epirus", "engineering structure", "environmental impact", "forest conservation", "hydroelectric development", "impact study", "protected area", "protection of animal life", "public works"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a736318c-498a-4eed-b4c1-44ba3253c881", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7fc03dc5-c603-48c9-a9c1-88da64892ec3", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 585/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Community directive on blood transfusions", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "EC Directive,health control,health legislation,illness,pharmaceutical product", "workIds": "celex:91992E000585", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EC Directive", "health control", "health legislation", "illness", "pharmaceutical product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7fc03dc5-c603-48c9-a9c1-88da64892ec3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a9ef1a31-70a5-4677-8d6b-b00a4d242e0d", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 567/92 by Mrs Winifred EWING to the Commission. Threat to the Scottish raspberry industry", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "EWING,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,agricultural product,association agreement (EU),generalised preferences,import price,market supervision,poultry,soft fruit,tariff quota,trading operation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000567", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "agricultural product", "association agreement (EU)", "generalised preferences", "import price", "market supervision", "poultry", "soft fruit", "tariff quota", "trading operation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a9ef1a31-70a5-4677-8d6b-b00a4d242e0d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4143e65e-15cc-42a9-ba39-255855de44cd", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 595/92 by Mr Jaak VANDEMEULEBROUCKE to the Council. Maastricht: interpretation and implementation of the Social Protocol", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VANDEMEULEBROUCKE", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Court of Justice of the European Union,Protocol (EU),Treaty on European Union,application of EU law,competence of the institution,interpretation of the law,social policy", "workIds": "celex:91992E000595", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Court of Justice of the European Union", "Protocol (EU)", "Treaty on European Union", "application of EU law", "competence of the institution", "interpretation of the law", "social policy"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4143e65e-15cc-42a9-ba39-255855de44cd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/547afb8b-b799-465c-bf59-0502404b4ca8", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 592/92 by Mr Gijs de VRIES to the Commission. State aid to port infrastructures", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DE VRIES,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "State aid,competition policy,harbour installation,intra-EU trade,public investment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000592", "eurovoc_concepts": ["State aid", "competition policy", "harbour installation", "intra-EU trade", "public investment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/547afb8b-b799-465c-bf59-0502404b4ca8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5953cd67-ecf7-41d6-b1ed-32717aa9f327", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 562/92 by Mr Ernest GLINNE to the Council. Danger of nuclear disasters in Bulgaria", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GLINNE", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Bulgaria,nuclear power station,nuclear safety,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000562", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Bulgaria", "nuclear power station", "nuclear safety", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5953cd67-ecf7-41d6-b1ed-32717aa9f327", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ecf2bb4b-4d96-48d5-bb78-667cb6523ce5", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 70/220/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "European standard,air quality,approximation of laws,motor vehicle,motor vehicle pollution,tax incentive", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0064,comnat:COM_1992_0064_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_100_R_0007_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European standard", "air quality", "approximation of laws", "motor vehicle", "motor vehicle pollution", "tax incentive"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ecf2bb4b-4d96-48d5-bb78-667cb6523ce5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d36dbc70-c9d8-4eda-97e5-dde12c8b7ebd", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the incineration of hazardous waste", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "air quality,dangerous substance,environmental protection,prevention of pollution,public health,waste disposal,waste incineration", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0009,comnat:COM_1992_0009_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_130_R_0001_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["air quality", "dangerous substance", "environmental protection", "prevention of pollution", "public health", "waste disposal", "waste incineration"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d36dbc70-c9d8-4eda-97e5-dde12c8b7ebd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ffbf5685-709c-4490-ac9b-6546f4812ae0", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 586/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Council. Realignment of borders between Italy and the former territory of Yugoslavia", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "European political cooperation,Italy,Yugoslavia,frontier,international agreement,territorial law", "workIds": "celex:91992E000586", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European political cooperation", "Italy", "Yugoslavia", "frontier", "international agreement", "territorial law"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ffbf5685-709c-4490-ac9b-6546f4812ae0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/04619894-5599-495a-8b6d-b31383c89d08", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 588/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Camerano Casasco waste tip in the Noci valley (province of Asti)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Piedmont,groundwater,health control,storage of waste,water pollution", "workIds": "celex:91992E000588", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Piedmont", "groundwater", "health control", "storage of waste", "water pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/04619894-5599-495a-8b6d-b31383c89d08", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d481a7bd-b2b3-4a84-b1cb-c2ca20dbd235", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 564/92 by Mr Madron SELIGMAN to the Commission. Alleged breach of CITES by Spain", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SELIGMAN", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Spain,application of EU law,fraud,international convention,international trade,protected species,protection of animals,tourism,wildlife", "workIds": "celex:91992E000564", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Spain", "application of EU law", "fraud", "international convention", "international trade", "protected species", "protection of animals", "tourism", "wildlife"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d481a7bd-b2b3-4a84-b1cb-c2ca20dbd235", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0ee9c0c2-ad29-44a1-996d-5ace00a3b24c", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 694/92 of 19 March 1992 laying down detailed rules applicable to the free supply of food products to the population of Albania as provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3860/91", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Albania,award of contract,food aid,foodstuff,freight rate,intervention agency", "workIds": "celex:31992R0694,oj:JOL_1992_074_R_0039_027", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Albania", "award of contract", "food aid", "foodstuff", "freight rate", "intervention agency"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0ee9c0c2-ad29-44a1-996d-5ace00a3b24c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/426b14af-d90c-4996-9be4-5b2a79107231", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 556/92 by Maartje van PUTTEN to the Commission. Implementation of EC legislation in the Netherlands", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VAN PUTTEN", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Netherlands,application of EU law,legislative procedure", "workIds": "celex:91992E000556", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Netherlands", "application of EU law", "legislative procedure"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/426b14af-d90c-4996-9be4-5b2a79107231", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0a49682a-0692-4ab6-a95b-d7a88663187e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 589/92 by Mr Giuseppe MOTTOLA to the Commission. Damage to, and defacement of, the artistic and cultural heritage - the creation of a 'European Cultural Fund'", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MOTTOLA", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "committee (EU),cultural heritage,cultural policy,fraud,fund (EU),heritage protection,improvement of housing,work of art", "workIds": "celex:91992E000589", "eurovoc_concepts": ["committee (EU)", "cultural heritage", "cultural policy", "fraud", "fund (EU)", "heritage protection", "improvement of housing", "work of art"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0a49682a-0692-4ab6-a95b-d7a88663187e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/de01980f-4ffd-4792-84cd-bdcb9f82017b", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 572/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Sources of drinking water in Greece", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Greece,application of EU law,drinking water,engineering structure,health risk,public health,water pollution,water supply", "workIds": "celex:91992E000572", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "application of EU law", "drinking water", "engineering structure", "health risk", "public health", "water pollution", "water supply"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/de01980f-4ffd-4792-84cd-bdcb9f82017b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5984fb33-a9db-4aae-9a1f-e148cab8ee89", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 597/92 by Mr S\u00e9rgio RIBEIRO to the Council. The Schengen Agreements", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RIBEIRO", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "European cooperation,exchange of information,fundamental rights,immigration,information system,police,political asylum,ratification of an agreement,terrorism", "workIds": "celex:91992E000597", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European cooperation", "exchange of information", "fundamental rights", "immigration", "information system", "police", "political asylum", "ratification of an agreement", "terrorism"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5984fb33-a9db-4aae-9a1f-e148cab8ee89", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2e1ea7bc-7e45-4b93-99c2-c35a45591364", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 591/92 by Mr Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Transport and burial of dangerous waste near Skopje", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ALAVANOS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Germany,Yugoslavia,cross-border transport,dangerous substance,health risk,industrial waste,pollution control,radioactive waste,waste disposal", "workIds": "celex:91992E000591", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Germany", "Yugoslavia", "cross-border transport", "dangerous substance", "health risk", "industrial waste", "pollution control", "radioactive waste", "waste disposal"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2e1ea7bc-7e45-4b93-99c2-c35a45591364", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a222d32e-4042-42b0-b5a5-91dc310a61d9", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 582/92 by Ingo FRIEDRICH to the Commission. Discrimination against German by EC Institutions", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,FRIEDRICH INGO", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,EU institution,contract,invitation to tender,public contract,trade relations", "workIds": "celex:91992E000582", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "EU institution", "contract", "invitation to tender", "public contract", "trade relations"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a222d32e-4042-42b0-b5a5-91dc310a61d9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3b6e3c6a-cf5a-42df-aa84-b3ec0cd77931", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 568/92 by Mr Panayotis ROUMELIOTIS to the Commission. Threat of a second hole in the ozone layer over Europe", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ROUMELIOTIS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Europe,halogen,ozone,pollution control,stratospheric pollution,substitute product", "workIds": "celex:91992E000568", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Europe", "halogen", "ozone", "pollution control", "stratospheric pollution", "substitute product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3b6e3c6a-cf5a-42df-aa84-b3ec0cd77931", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e32aed00-ea9f-4fa3-94d6-5be08e1ffd1e", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "cereals,intervention agency,intervention price,plant health control,product quality", "workIds": "celex:31992R0689,oj:JOL_1992_074_R_0018_022", "eurovoc_concepts": ["cereals", "intervention agency", "intervention price", "plant health control", "product quality"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e32aed00-ea9f-4fa3-94d6-5be08e1ffd1e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7e9ce432-2654-450f-92f2-2ffd6611a1b9", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 690/92 of 19 March 1992 establishing a reference method for the detection of cows' milk casein in cheeses made from ewes' milk", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "cattle,chemical process,food inspection,milk by-product,sheep's milk cheese", "workIds": "celex:31992R0690,oj:JOL_1992_074_R_0023_023", "eurovoc_concepts": ["cattle", "chemical process", "food inspection", "milk by-product", "sheep's milk cheese"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7e9ce432-2654-450f-92f2-2ffd6611a1b9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/536d941d-4350-459b-beac-7e563f715fb1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 569/92 by Mr Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Unauthorized construction of a marina at Nea Makri in Attika", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PAPAYANNAKIS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Central Greece,coastal protection,countryside conservation,environmental impact,harbour installation,heritage protection,impact study,public works", "workIds": "celex:91992E000569", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central Greece", "coastal protection", "countryside conservation", "environmental impact", "harbour installation", "heritage protection", "impact study", "public works"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/536d941d-4350-459b-beac-7e563f715fb1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6fb1f44e-f9a8-4d54-8c3d-0f8cecd1e552", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 577/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Pendeli quarries", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Central Greece,EU aid,Structural Funds,competence of the Member States,earths and stones,mining operation,protection of plant life", "workIds": "celex:91992E000577", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central Greece", "EU aid", "Structural Funds", "competence of the Member States", "earths and stones", "mining operation", "protection of plant life"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6fb1f44e-f9a8-4d54-8c3d-0f8cecd1e552", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/37a65ec5-6dff-4e4f-a270-a76c8752cd80", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 584/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. European anti-malaria programme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "World Health Organisation,developing countries,endemic disease,fourth Lom\u00e9 Convention,health policy,tropical disease", "workIds": "celex:91992E000584", "eurovoc_concepts": ["World Health Organisation", "developing countries", "endemic disease", "fourth Lom\u00e9 Convention", "health policy", "tropical disease"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/37a65ec5-6dff-4e4f-a270-a76c8752cd80", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/52f2d197-b82d-4d6f-ac3e-5fb961a3933c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 570/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Licences for Greek TV channels", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "EEC Treaty,Greece,audiovisual communications policy,competence of the Member States,equal treatment,market access,right of establishment,television", "workIds": "celex:91992E000570", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EEC Treaty", "Greece", "audiovisual communications policy", "competence of the Member States", "equal treatment", "market access", "right of establishment", "television"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/52f2d197-b82d-4d6f-ac3e-5fb961a3933c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fb180890-88d4-40d3-a6e0-9912264dc79e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 571/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Settlement of debts incurred by cooperatives", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "State aid,agricultural cooperative,aid to undertakings,competition,indebtedness,redistribution of income", "workIds": "celex:91992E000571", "eurovoc_concepts": ["State aid", "agricultural cooperative", "aid to undertakings", "competition", "indebtedness", "redistribution of income"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fb180890-88d4-40d3-a6e0-9912264dc79e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/30e94045-271a-4438-a9fb-e9b32177a4f7", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 575/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Functioning of the National Foundation for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled (NFRD)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "European Social Fund,Greece,competence of the Member States,disabled person,employment policy,foundation,reintegration into working life,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:91992E000575", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Social Fund", "Greece", "competence of the Member States", "disabled person", "employment policy", "foundation", "reintegration into working life", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/30e94045-271a-4438-a9fb-e9b32177a4f7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3e428b91-2f1b-4735-980e-6a377123e6ab", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 560/92 by Mr Alex SMITH to the Commission. Social indicators and the Structural Funds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SMITH ALEX", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Single European Act,Structural Funds,household income,internal migration,poverty,processing industry,social indicator,youth unemployment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000560", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Single European Act", "Structural Funds", "household income", "internal migration", "poverty", "processing industry", "social indicator", "youth unemployment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3e428b91-2f1b-4735-980e-6a377123e6ab", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a7cbf314-7e9f-4cd8-a087-661438eaa5c3", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 551/92 by Mr Pierre BERNARD-REYMOND to the Commission. Publicity on building-sites concerning European subsidies", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BERNARD-REYMOND,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "EU aid,European Regional Development Fund,Structural Funds,advertising,public works,regional development", "workIds": "celex:91992E000551", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "European Regional Development Fund", "Structural Funds", "advertising", "public works", "regional development"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a7cbf314-7e9f-4cd8-a087-661438eaa5c3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9be1e644-4117-4a98-b2b1-e61a50ab8f2c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 593/92 by Mr Gijs de VRIES to European Political Cooperation. Trade embargo against Haiti", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DE VRIES,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "ACP countries,GATT,Haiti,Lom\u00e9 Convention,OAS countries,UN Security Council,international sanctions,public international law", "workIds": "celex:91992E000593", "eurovoc_concepts": ["ACP countries", "GATT", "Haiti", "Lom\u00e9 Convention", "OAS countries", "UN Security Council", "international sanctions", "public international law"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9be1e644-4117-4a98-b2b1-e61a50ab8f2c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c19572ad-532c-421a-aa3b-a12dc29a9cb7", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 583/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Uncontrolled influx of gypsies in Genoa", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Liguria,immigration,migration control,nomadism,public order,social services,social structure", "workIds": "celex:91992E000583", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Liguria", "immigration", "migration control", "nomadism", "public order", "social services", "social structure"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c19572ad-532c-421a-aa3b-a12dc29a9cb7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1626c58a-f30c-4130-ab0c-b2b0b796d3b6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 596/92 by Mr S\u00e9rgio RIBEIRO to the Commission. The Schengen Agreements", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RIBEIRO", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "admission of aliens,cross-border cooperation,customs inspection,foreign national,free movement of persons,frontier,fundamental rights,information system,police checks,residence permit", "workIds": "celex:91992E000596", "eurovoc_concepts": ["admission of aliens", "cross-border cooperation", "customs inspection", "foreign national", "free movement of persons", "frontier", "fundamental rights", "information system", "police checks", "residence permit"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1626c58a-f30c-4130-ab0c-b2b0b796d3b6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b22370b6-0ebb-4c6b-90f5-3198907e976c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 558/92 by Mr Christopher JACKSON to the Commission. Meat hygiene", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,JACKSON CHRISTOPHER", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "EU production,cessation of trading,craft production,fresh meat,health legislation,meat processing industry,slaughter of animals", "workIds": "celex:91992E000558", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU production", "cessation of trading", "craft production", "fresh meat", "health legislation", "meat processing industry", "slaughter of animals"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b22370b6-0ebb-4c6b-90f5-3198907e976c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1b14850-10dd-468d-a6ed-f76e69abb2ba", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 594/92 by Mr Jaak VANDEMEULEBROUCKE to the Commission. Maastricht: interpretation and implementation of the Social Protocol", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VANDEMEULEBROUCKE", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Court of Justice of the European Union,European social policy,Protocol (EU),Treaty on European Union,application of EU law,interpretation of the law", "workIds": "celex:91992E000594", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Court of Justice of the European Union", "European social policy", "Protocol (EU)", "Treaty on European Union", "application of EU law", "interpretation of the law"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1b14850-10dd-468d-a6ed-f76e69abb2ba", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/23ab955e-5f30-4d25-adb5-055c81fd2644", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 554/92 by Mr Dieter ROGALLA to the Commission. Right of residence for students, pensioners and those not in paid employment", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ROGALLA", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "EU national,foreign student,non-working population,residence permit,retired person,social security", "workIds": "celex:91992E000554", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU national", "foreign student", "non-working population", "residence permit", "retired person", "social security"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/23ab955e-5f30-4d25-adb5-055c81fd2644", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f7fb3856-a7d9-4857-86ae-235c76afa3a4", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 561/92 by Mr Ernest GLINNE to the Commission. Danger of nuclear disasters in Bulgaria", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GLINNE", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Bulgaria,EU aid,International Atomic Energy Agency,emergency aid,nuclear accident,nuclear reactor,nuclear safety,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000561", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Bulgaria", "EU aid", "International Atomic Energy Agency", "emergency aid", "nuclear accident", "nuclear reactor", "nuclear safety", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f7fb3856-a7d9-4857-86ae-235c76afa3a4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/84e23c19-f503-4333-b203-8ef87a3920bc", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 599/92 by Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. Objective 5(b) and Cantabria", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-19", "subjects": "Cantabria,Structural Funds,co-financing,distribution of aid,environmental policy,policy on agricultural structures,product diversification,rural region", "workIds": "celex:91992E000599", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Cantabria", "Structural Funds", "co-financing", "distribution of aid", "environmental policy", "policy on agricultural structures", "product diversification", "rural region"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/84e23c19-f503-4333-b203-8ef87a3920bc", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/37659c86-0ffa-48ba-8e60-a527f4b37da2", "title": "92/231/EEC: Council Decision of 18 March 1991 on the conclusion of an agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria concerning the marketing, in Austrian territory, of Community table wines and ' Landwein' in bottles", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-18", "subjects": "Austria,agreement (EU),bottled wine,marketing,table wine", "workIds": "celex:31992D0231", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Austria", "agreement (EU)", "bottled wine", "marketing", "table wine"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/37659c86-0ffa-48ba-8e60-a527f4b37da2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/11aa34bd-1ca1-4c8a-a35f-933fd6173243", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 675/92 of 18 March 1992 amending Annexes I and III of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-18", "subjects": "animal product,health control,pharmaceutical legislation,veterinary medicinal product,veterinary medicine", "workIds": "celex:31992R0675,oj:JOL_1992_073_R_0008_022", "eurovoc_concepts": ["animal product", "health control", "pharmaceutical legislation", "veterinary medicinal product", "veterinary medicine"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/11aa34bd-1ca1-4c8a-a35f-933fd6173243", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d0429a3f-979d-48f9-a967-0999b5286735", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 674/92 of 18 March 1992 amending Annex B to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 on the common organization of the market in cereals and Annex B to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 on the common organization of the market in rice", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-18", "subjects": "cereal flakes,common customs tariff,tariff nomenclature", "workIds": "celex:31992R0674,oj:JOL_1992_073_R_0007_021", "eurovoc_concepts": ["cereal flakes", "common customs tariff", "tariff nomenclature"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d0429a3f-979d-48f9-a967-0999b5286735", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2739fcbb-36e9-4983-8cf1-e1cc26bf32a5", "title": "92/261/EEC: Commission Decision of 18 March 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/32.290 - Newitt/Dunlop Slazenger International and Others) (Only the English and Dutch texts are authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-18", "subjects": "United Kingdom,exclusive distribution agreement,export restriction,restriction on competition,sports equipment", "workIds": "celex:31992D0261,oj:JOL_1992_131_R_0032_028", "eurovoc_concepts": ["United Kingdom", "exclusive distribution agreement", "export restriction", "restriction on competition", "sports equipment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2739fcbb-36e9-4983-8cf1-e1cc26bf32a5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b55821c1-a46e-481a-acff-52e2866dfef3", "title": "Question No 4 by Mr NORDMANN (H-0264/92) to the Council: Austria' s application for EEC membership", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,NORDMANN", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "Austria,EC opinion,accession to the European Union,racism,xenophobia", "workIds": "celex:91992H000264", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Austria", "EC opinion", "accession to the European Union", "racism", "xenophobia"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b55821c1-a46e-481a-acff-52e2866dfef3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/757e9812-d851-4dd1-9215-97d4a1cf161a", "title": "Question No 11 by Mr GUTIERREZ DIAZ (H-0279/92) to the Council: Use of Catalan in the European Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GUTIERREZ DIAZ", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "Catalonia,regional culture", "workIds": "celex:91992H000279", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Catalonia", "regional culture"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/757e9812-d851-4dd1-9215-97d4a1cf161a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+null
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/158f8dcd-6289-4af5-a69e-0ec1c32c5e64", "title": "Protocols to the EEC-Yugoslavia Cooperation Agreement and other basic texts.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Council", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "Yugoslavia,agreement (EU),cooperation agreement,protocol to an agreement", "workIds": "PUB_BX6090167", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Yugoslavia", "agreement (EU)", "cooperation agreement", "protocol to an agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/158f8dcd-6289-4af5-a69e-0ec1c32c5e64", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/33d24f0b-c2c7-437a-90b4-7bb3286dd8f8", "title": "Office automation and social change in Europe.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion,European Commission", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "ergonomics,health legislation,information processing,information technology,office automation,teleworking,working conditions", "workIds": "PUB_CENC91005", "eurovoc_concepts": ["ergonomics", "health legislation", "information processing", "information technology", "office automation", "teleworking", "working conditions"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/33d24f0b-c2c7-437a-90b4-7bb3286dd8f8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f0591f8c-263b-4b08-bf8a-46eb7631345d", "title": "92/195/EEC: Commission Decision of 17 March 1992 on the organization of a temporary experiment under Council Directive 66/401/EEC on the marketing of fodder plant seed with regard to increasing the maximum weight of a lot", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "fodder plant,marketing,seed", "workIds": "celex:31992D0195,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0059_056", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fodder plant", "marketing", "seed"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f0591f8c-263b-4b08-bf8a-46eb7631345d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/336f95a1-bcd7-4549-a978-ffbe1d97e0ed", "title": "Convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes - Declaration by the Community pursuant to Article 25 (4) of the Convention", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "fmx4,html,pdfa1b,print,xhtml", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_international,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_non-member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Albania,Austria,Belgium,Bulgaria,Denmark,Estonia,European Community,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,Hungary,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Luxembourg,Netherlands,Norway,Poland,Portugal,Romania,Russia,Spain,Sweden,Switzerland,United Kingdom", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "environmental cooperation,international convention,lake,pollution of waterways,transfrontier pollution,water protection,watercourse", "workIds": "celex:21995A0805(01)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["environmental cooperation", "international convention", "lake", "pollution of waterways", "transfrontier pollution", "water protection", "watercourse"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/336f95a1-bcd7-4549-a978-ffbe1d97e0ed", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["fmx4", "html", "pdfa1b", "print", "xhtml"], "text": "L_1995186EN. 01004401. xml\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n5. 8. 1995\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\nEN\n\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n\nL 186/44\n\n\n\n\n\nCONVENTION\non the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes done at Helsinki, on 17 March 1992\nUnited Nations\n1992\nConvention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes\n\nPREAMBLE\n\nTHE PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION,\nMINDFUL that the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes are important and urgent tasks, the effective accomplishment of which can only be ensured by enhanced cooperation,\nCONCERNED over the existence and threats of adverse effects, in the short or long term, of changes in the conditions of transboundary watercourses and international lakes on the environment, economies and well being of the member countries of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE),\nEMPHASIZING the need for strengthened national and international measures to prevent, control and reduce the release of hazardous substances into the aquatic environment and to abate eutrophication and acidification, as well as pollution of the marine environment, in particular coastal areas, from land-based sources,\nCOMMENDING the efforts already undertaken by the ECE Governments to strengthen cooperation, on bilateral and multilateral levels, for the prevention, control and reduction of transboundary pollution, sustainable water management, conservation of water resources and environmental protection,\nRECALLING the pertinent provisions and principles of the Declaration of the Stockholm Conference on the human environment, the final Act of the Conference on security and cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the Concluding Documents of the Madrid and Vienna meetings of representatives of the participating States of the CSCE, and the regional strategy for environmental protection and rational use of natural resources in ECE member countries covering the period up to the year 2000 and beyond,\nCONSCIOUS of the role of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in promoting international cooperation for the prevention, control and reduction of transboundary water pollution and sustainable use of transboundary waters, and in this regard recalling the ECE Declaration of policy on prevention and control of water pollution, including transboundary pollution; the ECE Declaration of policy on the rational use of water; the ECE principles regarding Cooperation in the Field of Transboundary Waters the ECE Charter on groundwater management; and the Code of conduct on accidental pollution of transboundary inland waters,\nREFERRING to decisions I (42) and I (44) adopted by the Economic Commission for Europe at its 42nd and 44th sessions, respectively, and the outcome of the CSCE meeting on the protection of the environment (Sofia, Bulgaria, 16 October to 3 November 1989),\nEMPHASIZING that cooperation between member countries in regard to the protection and use of transboundary waters shall be implemented primarily through the elaboration of agreements between countries bordering the same waters, especially where no such agreements have yet been reached,\nHAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nDefinitions\nFor the purposes of this Convention:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1. \u2018Transboundary waters\u2019 means any surface or ground waters which mark, cross or are located on boundaries between two or more States; wherever transboundary waters flow directly into the sea, these transboundary waters end at a straight line across their respective mouths between points on the low-water line of their banks;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n2. \u2018Transboundary impact\u2019 means any significant adverse effect on the environment resulting from a change in the conditions of transboundary waters caused by a human activity, the physical origin of which is situated wholly or in part within an area under the jurisdiction of another Party. Such effects on the environment include effects on human health and safety, flora, fauna, soil, air, water, climate, landscape and historical monuments or other physical structures or the interaction among these factors; they also include effects on the cultural heritage or socio-economic conditions resulting from alterations to those factors;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n3. \u2018Party\u2019 means, unless the text otherwise indicates, a Contracting Party to this Convention;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n4. \u2018Riparian Parties\u2019 means the Parties bordering the same transboundary waters;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n5. \u2018Joint body\u2019 means any bilateral or multilateral commission or other appropriate institutional arrangements for cooperation between the Riparian Parties;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n6. \u2018Hazardous substances\u2019 means substances which are toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic or bio-accumulative, especially when they are persistent;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n7. \u2018best available technology\u2019 (the definition is contained in Annex I to this Convention). PART I\n\nPROVISIONS RELATING TO ALL PARTIES\n\nArticle 2\nGeneral provisions\n1. The Parties shall take all appropriate measures to prevent, control and reduce any transboundary impact. 2. The Parties shall, in particular, take all appropriate measures:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nto prevent, control and reduce pollution of waters causing or likely to cause transboundary impact;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nto ensure that transboundary waters are used with the aim of ecologically sound and rational water management, conservation of water resources and environmental protection;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nto ensure that transboundary waters are used in a reasonable and equitable way, taking into particular account their transboundary character, in the case of activities which cause or are likely to cause transboundary impact;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nto ensure conservation and, where necessary, restoration of ecosystems. 3. Measures for the prevention, control and reduction of water pollution shall be taken, where possible, at source. 4. These measures shall not directly or indirectly result in a transfer of pollution to other parts of the environment. 5. In taking the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, the Parties shall be guided by the following principles:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nthe precautionary principle, by virtue of which action to avoid the potential transboundary impact of the release of hazardous substances shall not be postponed on the ground that scientific research has not fully proved a causal link between those substances, on the one hand, and the potential transboundary impact, on the other hand;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nthe polluter-pays principle, by virtue of which costs of pollution prevention, control and reduction measures shall be borne by the polluter;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nwater resources shall be managed so that the needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 6. The Riparian Parties shall cooperate on the basis of equality and reciprocity, in particular through bilateral and multilateral agreements, in order to develop harmonized policies, programmes and strategies covering the relevant catchment areas, or parts thereof, aimed at the prevention, control and reduction of transboundary impact and aimed at the protection of the environment of transboundary waters or the environment influenced by such waters, including the marine envionment. 7. The application of this Convention shall not lead to the deterioration of environmental conditions nor lead to increased transboundary impact. 8. The provisions of this Convention shall not affect the right of Parties individually or jointly to adopt and implement more stringent measures than those set down in this Convention. Article 3\nPrevention, control and reduction\n1. To prevent, control and reduce transboundary impact, the Parties shall develop, adopt, implement and, as far as possible, render compatible relevant legal, administrative, economic, financial and technical measures, in order to ensure, inter alia, that:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nthe emission of pollutants is prevented, controlled and reduced at source through the application of, inter alia, low and non-waste technology. (b)\n\n\ntransboundary waters are protected against pollution from point sources through the prior licensing of waste water discharges by the competent national authorities, and that the authorized discharges are monitored and controlled;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nlimits for waste water discharges stated in permits are based on the best available technology for discharges of hazardous substances;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nstricter requirements, even leading to prohibition in individual cases, are imposed when the quality of the receiving water or the ecosystem so requires;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(e)\n\n\nAt least biological treatment or equivalent processes are applied to municipal waste water, where necessary in a step-by-step approach;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(f)\n\n\nappropriate measures are taken, such as the application of the best available technology, in order to reduce nutrient inputs from industrial and municipal sources;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(g)\n\n\nappropriate measures and best environmental practices are developed and implemented for the reduction of inputs of nutrients and hazardous substances from diffuse sources, especially where the main sources are from agriculture (guidelines for developing best environmental practices are given in Annex II to this Convention);\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(h)\n\n\nenvironmental impact assessment and other means of assessment are applied;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(i)\n\n\nsustainable water-resources management, including the application of the ecosystems approach, is promoted:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(j)\n\n\ncontingency planning is developed;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(k)\n\n\nadditional specific measures are taken to prevent the pollution of groundwaters;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(l)\n\n\nthe risk of accidental pollution is minimized. 2. To this end, each Party shall set emission limits for discharges from point sources into surface waters based on the best available technology, which are specifically applicable to individual sectors or industries from which hazardous substances derive. The appropriate measures mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article to prevent, control and reduce the input of hazardous substances from point and diffuse sources into waters, may, inter alia, include total or partial prohibition of the production or use of such substances. Existing lists of such industrial sectors or industries and of such hazardous substances in international conventions or regulations, which are applicable in the area covered by this Convention, shall be taken into account. 3. In addition, each Party shall define, where appropriate, water-quality objectives and adopt water-quality criteria for the purpose of preventing, controlling and reducing transboundary impact. General guidance for developing such objectives and criteria is given in Annex III to this Convention. When necessary, the Parties shall endeavour to update this Annex. Article 4\nMonitoring\nThe Parties shall establish programmes for monitoring the conditions of transboundary waters. Article 5\nResearch and development\nThe Parties shall cooperate in the conduct of research into and development of effective techniques for the prevention, control and reduction of transboundary impact. To this effect, the Parties shall, on a bilateral and/or multilateral basis, taking into account research activities pursued in relevant international forums, endeavour to initiate or intensify specific research programmes, where necessary, aimed, inter alia, at:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nmethods for the assessment of the toxicity of hazardous substances and the noxiousness of pollutants;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nimproved knowledge on the occurrence, distribution and environmental effects of pollutants and the processes involved;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nthe development and application of environmentally sound technologies, production and consumption patterns;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nthe phasing out and/or substitution of substances likely to have transboundary impact;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(e)\n\n\nenvironmentally sound methods of disposal of hazardous substances;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(f)\n\n\nspecial methods for improving the conditions of trans-boundary waters;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(g)\n\n\nthe development of environmentally sound water-construction works and water-regulation techniques;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(h)\n\n\nthe physical and financial assessment of damage resulting from transboundary impact. The results of these research programmes shall be exchanged among the Parties in accordance with Article 6 of this Convention. Article 6\nExchange of information\nThe Parties shall provide for the widest exchange of information, as early as possible, on issues covered by the provisions of this Convention. Article 7\nResponsibility and liability\nThe Parties shall support appropriate international efforts to elaborate rules, criteria and procedures in the field of responsibility and liability. Article 8\nProtection of information\nThe provisions of this Convention shall not affect the rights or the obligations of Parties in accordance with their national legal systems and applicable supranational regulations to protect information related to industrial and commercial secrecy, including intellectual property, or national security. PART II\n\nPROVISIONS RELATING TO RIPARIAN PARTIES\n\nArticle 9\nBilateral and multilateral cooperation\n1. The Riparian Parties shall on the basis of equality and reciprocity enter into bilateral or multilateral agreements or other arrangements, where these do not yet exist, or adapt existing ones, where necessary to eliminate the contradictions with the basic principles of this Convention, in order to define their mutual relations and conduct regarding the prevention, control and reduction of transboundary impact. The Riparian Parties shall specify the catchment area, or part(s) thereof, subject to cooperation. These agreements or arrangements shall embrace relevant issues covered by this Convention, as well as any other issues on which the Riparian Parties may deem it necessary to cooperate. 2. The agreements or arrangements mentioned in paragraph 1 of this Article shall provide for the establishment of joint bodies. The tasks of these joint bodies shall be, inter alia, and without prejudice to relevant existing agreements or arrangements, the following:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nto collect, compile and evaluate data in order to identify pollution sources likely to cause transboundary impact;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nto elaborate joint monitoring programmes concerning water quality and quantity;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nto draw up inventories and exchange information on the pollution sources mentioned in paragraph 2 (a) of this Article;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nto elaborate emission limits for waste water and evaluate the effectiveness of control programmes;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(e)\n\n\nto elaborate joint water-quality objectives and criteria having regard to the provisions of Article 3 (3) of this Convention, and to propose relevant measures for maintaining and, where necessary, improving the existing water quality;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(f)\n\n\nto develop concerted action programmes for the reduction of pollution laods loads from both point sources (e. g. municipal and industrial sources) and diffuse sources (particularly from agriculture);\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(g)\n\n\nto establish warning and alarm procedures;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(h)\n\n\nto serve as a forum for the exchange of information on existing and planned uses of water and related installations that are likely to cause transboundary impact;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(i)\n\n\nto promote cooperation and exchange of information on the best available technology in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 of this Convention, as well as to encourage cooperation in scientific research programmes;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(j)\n\n\nto participate in the implementation of environmental impact assessments to transboundary waters, in accordance with appropriate international regulations. 3. In cases where a coastal State, being Party to this Convention, is directly and significantly affected by trans-boundary impact, the Riparian Parties can, if they all so agree, invite that coastal State to be involved in an appropriate manner in the activities of multilateral joint bodies established by Parties riparian to such transboundary waters. 4. Joint bodies according to this Convention shall invite joint bodies, established by coastal States for the protection of the marine environment directly affected by transboundary impact, to cooperate in order to harmonize their work and to prevent, control and reduce the transboundary impact. 5. Where two or more joint bodies exist in the same catchment area, they shall endeavour to coordinate their activities in order to strengthen the prevention, control and reduction of transboundary impact within that catchment area. Article 10\nConsultations\nConsultations shall be held between the Riparian Parties on the basis of reciprocity, good faith and good-neighbourliness, at the request of any such Party. Such consultations shall aim at cooperation regarding the issues covered by the provisions of this Convention. Any such consultations shall be conducted through a joint body established pursuant to Article 9 of this Convention, where one exists. Article 11\nJoint monitoring and assessment\n1. In the framework of general cooperation mentioned in Article 9 of this Convention, or specific arrangements, the Riparian Parties shall establish and implement joint programmes for monitoring the conditions of transboundary waters, including floods and ice drifts, as well as transboundary impact. 2. The Riparian Parties shall agree upon pollution parameters and pollutants whose discharges and concentration in transboundary waters shall be regularly monitored. 3. The Riparian Parties shall, at regular intervals, carry out joint or coordinated assessments of the conditions of transboundary waters and the effectiveness of measures taken for the prevention, control and reduction of transboundary impact. The results of these assessments shall be made available to the public in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 16 of this Convention. 4. For these purposes, the Riparian Parties shall harmonize rules for the setting up and operation of monitoring programmes, measurement systems, devices, analytical techniques, data processing and evaluation procedures, and methods for the registration of pollutants discharged. Article 12\nCommon research and development\nIn the framework of general cooperation mentioned in Article 9 of this Convention, or specific arrangements, the Riparian Parties shall undertake specific research and development activities in support of achieving and maintaining the water-quality objectives and criteria which they have agreed to set and adopt. Article 13\nExchange of information between Riparian Parties\n1. The Riparian Parties shall, within the framework of relevant agreements or other arrangements according to Article 9 of this Convention, exchange reasonably available data, inter alia, on:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nenvironmental conditions of transboundary waters;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nexperience gained in the application and operation of best available technology and results of research and development:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nemission and monitoring data;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nmeasures taken and planned to be taken to prevent, control and reduce transboundary impact;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(e)\n\n\npermits or regulations for waste-water discharges issued by the competent authority or appropriate body. 2. In order to harmonize emission limits, the Riparian Parties shall undertake the exchange of information on their national regulations. 3. If a Riparian Party is requested by another Riparian Party to provide data or information that is not available, the former shall endeavour to comply with the request but may condition its compliance upon the payment, by the requesting Party, of reasonable charges for collecting and, where appropriate, processing such data or information. 4. For the purposes of the implementation of this Convention, the Riparian Parties shall facilitate the exchange of best available technology, particularly through the promotion of: the commercial exchange of available technology; direct industrial contacts and cooperation, including joint ventures; the exchange of information and experience; and the provision of technical assistance. The Riparian Parties shall also undertake joint training programmes and the organization of relevant seminars and meetings. Article 14\nWarning and alarm systems\nThe Riparian Parties shall without delay inform each other about any critical situation that may have trans-boundary impact. The Riparian Parties shall set up, where appropriate, and operate coordinated or joint communication, warning and alarm systems with the aim of obtaining and transmitting information. These systems shall operate on the basis of compatible data transmission and treatment procedures and facilities to be agreed upon by the Riparian Parties. The Riparian Parties shall inform each other about competent authorities or points of contact designated for this purpose. Article 15\nMutual assistance\n1. If a critical situation should arise, the Riparian Parties shall provide mutual assistance upon request, following procedures to be established in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article. 2. The Riparian Parties shall elaborate and agree upon procedures for mutual assistance addressing, inter alia, the following issues:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nthe direction, control, coordination and supervision of assistance;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nlocal facilities and services to be rendered by the Party requesting assistance, including, where necessary, the facilitation of border-crossing formalities;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\narrangements, for holding harmless, indemnifying and/or compensating the assisting Party and/or its personnel, as well as for transit through territories of third Parties, where necessary;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nmethods of reimbursing assistance services. Article 16\nPublic information\n1. The Riparian Parties shall ensure that information on the conditions of transboundary waters, measures taken or planned to be taken to prevent, control and reduce transboundary impact, and the effectiveness of those measures, is made available to the public. For this purpose, the Riparian Parties shall ensure that the following information is made available to the public:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nwater-quality objectives;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\npermits issued and the conditions required to be met;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nresults of water and effluent sampling carried out for the purposes of monitoring and assessment, as well as results of checking compliance with the water-quality objectives or the permit conditions. 2. The Riparian Parties shall ensure that this information shall be available to the public at all reasonable times for inspection free of charge, and shall provide members of the public with reasonable facilities for obtaining from the Riparian Parties, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of such information. PART III\n\nINSTITUTIONAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS\n\nArticle 17\nMeeting of parties\n1. The first meeting of the Parties shall be convened no later than one year after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. Thereafter, ordinary meetings shall be held every three years, or at shorter intervals as laid down in the rules of procedure. The Parties shall hold an extraordinary meeting if they so decide in the course of an ordinary meeting or at the written request of any Party, provided that, within six months of it being communicated to all Parties, the said request is supported by at least one-third of the Parties. 2. At their meetings, the Parties shall keep under continuous review the implementation of this Convention, and, with this purpose in mind, shall:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nreview the policies for and methodological approaches to the protection and use of transbordary waters of the Parties with a view to further improving the protection and use of transboundary waters;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nexchange information regarding experience gained in concluding and implementing bilateral and multilateral agreements or other arrangements regarding the protection and use of transboundary waters to which one or more of the Parties are party;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nseek, where appropriate, the services of relevant ECE bodies as well as other component international bodies and specific committees in all aspects pertinent to the achievement of the purposes of this Convention;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nat their first meeting, consider and by consensus adopt rules of procedure for their meetings;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(e)\n\n\nconsider and adopt proposals for amendments to this Convention;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(f)\n\n\nconsider and undertake any additional action that may be required for the achievement of the purposes of this Convention. Article 18\nRight to vote\n1. Except as provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article, each Party to this Convention shall have one vote. 2. Regional economic integration organizations, in matters within their competence, shall exercise their right to vote with a number of votes equal to the number of their Member States which are Parties to this Convention. Such organizations shall not exercise their right to vote if their Member States exercise theirs, and vice versa. Article 19\nSecretariat\nThe Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe shall carry out the following secretarial functions:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nthe convening and preparing of meetings of the Parties;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nthe transmission to the Parties of reports and other information received in accordance with the provisions of this Convention;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nthe performance of such other functions as may be determined by the Parties. Article 20\nAnnexes\nAnnexes to this Convention shall constitute an integral part thereof. Article 21\nAmendments to the Convention\n1. Any Party may propose amendments to this Convention. 2. Proposals for amendments to this Convention shall be considered at a meeting of the Parties. 3. The text of any proposed amendment to this Convention shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe, who shall communicate it to all Parties at least 90 days before the meeting at which it is proposed for adoption. 4. An amendment to the present Convention shall be adopted by consensus of the representatives of the Parties to this Convention present at a meeting of the Parties, and shall enter into force for the Parties to the Convention which have accepted it on the 90th day after the date on which two-thirds of those Parties have deposited with the Depositary their instruments of acceptance of the amendment. The amendment shall enter into force for any other Party on the 90th day after the date on which that Party deposits its instrument of acceptance of the amendment. Article 22\nSettlement of disputes\n1. If a dispute arises between two or more Parties about the interpretation or application of this Convention, they shall seek a solution by negotiation or by any other means of dispute settlement acceptable to the parties to the dispute. 2. When signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to this Convention, or at any time thereafter, a Party may declare in writing to the Depositary that, for a dispute not resolved in accordance with paragraph 1 of the present Article, it accepts one or both of the following means of dispute settlement as compulsory in relation to any Party accepting the same obligation. (a)\n\n\nsubmission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\narbitration in accordance with the procedure set out in Annex IV. 3. If the parties to the dispute have accepted both means of dispute settlement referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article, the dispute may be submitted only to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree otherwise. Article 23\nSignature\nThis Convention shall be open for signature at Helsinki from 17 to 18 March 1992 inclusive, and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in New York until 18 September 1992 by States members of the Economic Commission for Europe as well as States having consultative status with the Economic Commission for Europe pursuant to paragraph 8 of Economic and Social Council resolution 36 (IV) of 28 March 1947, and by regional economic integration organization constituted by sovereign States members of the Economic Commission for Europe to which their Member States have transferred competence over matters governed by this Convention, including the competence to enter into treaties in respect of these matters. Article 24\nDepositary\nThe Secretary-General of the United Nations shall act as the Depositary of this Convention. Article 25\nRatification, acceptance, approval and accession\n1. This Convention shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States and regional economic integration organizations. 2. This Convention shall be open for accession by the States and organizations referred to in Article 23. 3. Any organization referred to in Article 23 which becomes a Party to this Convention without any of its Member States being a Party shall be bound by all the obligations under this Convention. In the case of such organizations, one or more of whose Member States is a Party to this Convention, the organization and its Member States shall decide on their respective responsibilities for the performance of their obligations under this Convention. In such cases, the organization and the Member States shall not be entitled to exercise rights under this Convention concurrently. 4. In their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, the regional economic integration organizations referred to in Article 23 shall declare the extent of their competence with respect to the matters governed by this Convention. These organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any substantial modification to the extent of their competence. Article 26\nEntry into force\n1. This Convention shall enter into force on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 16th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1 of this Article, any instrument deposited by a regional economic integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by States members of such an organization. 3. For each State or organization referred to in Article 23 which ratifies, accepts or approves this Convention or accedes thereto after the deposit of the 16th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the 90th day after the date of deposit by such State or organization of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Article 27\nWithdrawal\nAt any time after three years from the date on which this Convention has come into force with respect to a Party, that Party may withdraw from the Convention by giving written notification to the Depositary. Any such withdrawal shall take effect on the 90th day after the date of its receipt by the Depositary. Article 28\nAuthentic texts\nThe original of this Convention, of which the English, French and Russian texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have signed this Convention. DONE at Helsinki, this seventeenth day of March one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two. Annex I\nDEFINITION OF THE TERM \u2018BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY\u2019\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1. The term \u2018best available technology\u2019 is taken to mean the latest stage of development of processes, facilities or methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of a particular measure for limiting discharges, emissions and waste. In determining whether a set of processes, facilities and methods of operation constitute the best available technology in general or individual cases, special consideration is given to:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\ncomparable processes, facilities or methods of operation which have recently been successfully tried out;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\ntechnological advances and changes in scientific knowledge and understanding;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nthe economic feasibility of such technology;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\ntime limits for installation in both new and existing plants;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(e)\n\n\nthe nature and volume of the discharges and effluents concerned;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(f)\n\n\nlow- and non-waste technology. 2. It therefore follows that what is \u2018best available technology\u2019 for a particular process will change with time in the light of technological advances, economic and social factors, as well as in the light of changes in scientific knowledge and understanding. Annex II\nGUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING BEST ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1. In selecting for individual cases the most appropriate combination of measures which may constitute the best environmental practice, the following graduated range of measures should be considered:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nprovision of information and education to the public and to users about the environmental consequences of the choice of particular activities and products, their use and ultimate disposal;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nthe development and application of codes of good environmental practice which cover all aspects of the product's life;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nlabels informing users of environmental risks related to a product, its use and ultimate disposal;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\ncollection and disposal systems available to the public;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(e)\n\n\nrecycling, recovery and reuse;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(f)\n\n\napplication of economic instruments to activities, products or groups of products;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(g)\n\n\na system of licensing, which involves a range of restrictions or a ban. 2. In determining what combination of measures constitute best environmental practices, in general or in indivudual cases, particular consideration should be given to:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nthe environmental hazard of:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(i)\n\n\nthe product;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(ii)\n\n\nthe product's production;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(iii)\n\n\nthe product's use;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(iv)\n\n\nthe product's ultimate disposal;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nsubstitution by less polluting processes or substances;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nscale of use;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\npotential environmental benefit or penalty of substitute materials or activities;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(e)\n\n\nadvances and changes in scientific knowledge and understanding;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(f)\n\n\ntime limits for implementation;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(g)\n\n\nsocial and economic implications. 3. It therefore follows hat best environmental practices for a particular source sill change with time in the light of technological advances, economic and social factors, as well as in the light of changes in scientific knowledge and understanding. Annex III\nGUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING WATER-QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA\nWater-quality objectives and criteria shall:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\ntake into account the aim of maintaining and, where necessary, improving the existing water quality;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\naim at the reduction of average pollution loads (in particular hazardous substances) to a certain degree within a certain period of time;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\ntake into account specific water-quality requirements (raw water for drinking-water purposes, irrigation, etc. );\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\ntake into account specific requirements regarding sensitive and specially protected waters and their environment, e. g. lakes and groundwater resources;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(e)\n\n\nbe based on the application of ecological classification methods and chemical indices for the medium-and long-term review of water-quality maintenance and improvement;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(f)\n\n\ntake into account the degree to which objectives are reached and the additional protective measures, based on emission limits, which may be required in individual cases. Annex IV\nARBITRATION\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1. In the event of a dispute being submitted for arbitration pursuant to Article 22, paragraph 2 of this Convention, a party or parties shall notify the secretariat of the subject matter of arbritration and indicate, in particular, the Articles of this Convention whose intepretation or application it at issue. The secretariat shall forward the information received to all Parties to this Convention. 2. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of three members. Both the claimant party or parties and the other party or parties to the dispute shall appoint an arbitrator, and the two arbitrators so appointed shall designate by common agreement the third arbitrator, who shall be the president of the arbitral tribunal. The latter shall not be a national of one of the parties to the dispute, nor have his or her usual place of residence in the teritory of one of these parties, nor be employed by any of them, nor have dealt with the case in any other capacity. 3. If the president of the arbitral tribunal has not been designated within two months of the appointment of the second arbitrator, the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe shall, at the request of either party to the dispute, designate the president within a further two-month period. 4. If one of the parties to the dispute does not appoint an arbitrator within two months of the receipt of the request, the other party may so inform the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe, who shall designate the president of the arbitral tribunal within a further two-month period. Upon designation, the president of the arbitral tribunal shall request the party which has not appointed an arbitrator to do so within two months. If it fails to do so within that period, the president shall so inform the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe, who shall make this appointment within a further two-month period. 5. The arbitral tribunal shall render its decision in accordance with international law and the provisions of this Convention. 6. Any arbitral tribunal constituted under the provisions set out in this Annex shall draw up its own rules of procedure. 7. The decisions of the arbitral tribunal, both on procedure and on substance, shall be taken by majority vote of its members. 8. The tribunal may take all appropriate measures to establish the facts. 9. The parties to the dispute shall facilitate the work of the arbitral tribunal and, in particular, using all means at their disposal, shall:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nprovide it with all relevant documents, facilities and information;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nenable it, where necessary, to call witnesses or experts and receive their evidence. 10. The parties and the arbitrators shall protect the confidentiality of any information they receive in confidence during the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal. 11. The arbitral tribunal may, at the request of one of the parties, recommend interim measures of protection. 12. If one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its case, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the proceedings and to render its final decision. Absence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings. 13. The arbitral tribunal may hear and determine counter-claims arising directly out of the subject-matter of the dispute. 14. Unless the arbitral tribunal determines otherwise because of the particular circumstances of the case, the expenses of the tribunal, including the remuneration of its members, shall be borne by the parties to the dispute in equal shares. The tribunal shall keep a record of all its expenses, and shall furnish a final statement thereof to the parties. 15. Any Party to this Convention which has an interest of a legal nature in the subject-matter of the dispute, and which may be affected by a decision in the case, may intervene in the proceedings with the consent of the tribunal. 16. The arbitral tribunal shall render its award within five months of the date on which it is established, unless it finds it necessary to extend the time limit for a period which should not exceed five months. 17. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be accompanied by a statement of reasons. It shall be final and binding upon all parties to the dispute. The award will be transmitted by the arbitral tribunal to the parties to the dispute and to the secretariat. The secretariat will forward the information received to all Parties to this Convention. 18. Any dispute which may arise between the parties concerning the interpretation or execution of the award may be submitted by either party to the arbitral tribunal which made the award or, if the latter cannot be seized thereof, to another tribunal constituted for this purpose in the same manner as the first. ANNEX II\nDeclaration by the Community pursuant to Article 25 (4) of the Convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes\nHaving regard to Article 25 (4) of the Convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes, concerning the extent of competence of organizations mentioned in that paragraph:\nIn accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community and in the light of the Community legislation existing in the field covered by the Convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes, and in particular the legal instruments listed hereunder, the Community is competent for international matters. The Member States of the European Community also have international competence which applies equally to matters covered by the said Convention. The legal instruments referred to above are as follows:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States\u00a0(1),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water\u00a0(2),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 74/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community\u00a0(3);\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 78/176/EEC of 20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry\u00a0(4),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life\u00a0(5),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 79/869/EEC of 9 October 1979 concerning the methods of measurement and frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water\u00a0(6),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances\u00a0(7),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 30/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption\u00a0(8),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 82/176/EEC of 22 March 1982 on the limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis industry\u00a0(9),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 82/883/EEC of 3 December 1982 on procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of environments concerned by waste from the titanium dioxide industry\u00a0(10),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium discharges\u00a0(11),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 84/156/EEC of 8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor-akali electrolysis industry\u00a0(12),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 84/491/EEC of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane\u00a0(13),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC\u00a0(14),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 88/347/EEC of 16 June 1988 amending Annex II to Directive 86/280/EEC on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC\u00a0(15),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 90/415/EEC of 27 July 1990 amending Annex II to Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC\u00a0(16),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment\u00a0(17),\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nCouncil Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources\u00a0(18). The pursuit of the Community's environment policy means that this list may be subject to change with the amendment or repeal of existing texts or the adoption of new texts. (1)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 194, 25. 7. 1975, p. 34. (2)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 31, 5. 2. 1976, p. 1. (3)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 129, 18. 5. 1976, p. 23. (4)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 54, 25. 2. 1978, p. 19. (5)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 222, 14. 8. 1978, p. 1. (6)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 271, 29. 10. 1979, p. 44. (7)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 20, 26. 1. 1980, p. 43. (8)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 229, 30. 8. 1980, p. 11. (9)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 81, 27. 3. 1982, p. 29. (10)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 378, 31. 12. 1982, p. 1. (11)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 291, 24. 10. 1983, p. 1. (12)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 74, 17. 3. 1984, p. 49. (13)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 274, 17. 10. 1984, p. 11. (14)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 181, 4. 7. 1986, p. 16. (15)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 158, 25. 6. 1988, p. 35. (16)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 219, 14. 8. 1990, p. 49. (17)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 135, 30. 5. 1991, p. 40. (18)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 375, 31. 12. 1991, p. 1"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1d066d05-2a09-460d-8649-c75e2c6ecd62", "title": "Question No 62 by Mr MEDINA ORTEGA (H-0272/92) to the Commission: Collapse of Community tomato prices", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MEDINA ORTEGA", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "EU agricultural market,Morocco,fruit vegetable,import (EU),price reduction,third country", "workIds": "celex:91992H000272", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU agricultural market", "Morocco", "fruit vegetable", "import (EU)", "price reduction", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1d066d05-2a09-460d-8649-c75e2c6ecd62", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/23d439b8-6c03-11e4-9680-01aa75ed71a1", "title": "Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents - Declaration by the European Community concerning competence", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "fmx4,html,pdf,print,xhtml", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_international,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_non-member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Albania,Austria,Belgium,Bulgaria,Canada,Denmark,Estonia,European Community,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,Hungary,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Luxembourg,Netherlands,Poland,Portugal,Russia,Spain,Sweden,Switzerland,United Kingdom,United States", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "UN convention,cross-border cooperation,environmental cooperation,environmental protection,industrial accident,industrial hazard,international cooperation,multilateral agreement,public health", "workIds": "celex:21998A1203(01),oj:JOL_1998_326_R_0005_002", "eurovoc_concepts": ["UN convention", "cross-border cooperation", "environmental cooperation", "environmental protection", "industrial accident", "industrial hazard", "international cooperation", "multilateral agreement", "public health"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/23d439b8-6c03-11e4-9680-01aa75ed71a1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["fmx4", "html", "pdf", "print", "xhtml"], "text": "3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/5\n\nCONVENTION ON THE TRANSBOUNDARY EFFECTS OF\nINDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS\n\n\fL 326/6\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nCONVENTION ON THE TRANSBOUNDARY EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS\n\nPreamble\n\nTHE PARTIES TO THIS CONVENTION,\n\nMINDFUL of the special importance, in the interest of present and future generations, of protecting human\nbeings and the environment against the effects of industrial accidents,\n\nRECOGNISING the importance and urgency of preventing serious adverse effects of industrial accidents on\nhuman beings and the environment, and of promoting all measures that stimulate the rational, economic\nand efficient use of preventive, preparedness and response measures to enable environmentally sound and\nsustainable economic development,\n\nTAKING INTO ACCOUNT the fact that the effects of industrial accidents may make themselves felt across\nborders, and require cooperation among States,\n\nAFFIRMING the need to promote active international cooperation among the States concerned before,\nduring and after an accident, to enhance appropriate policies and to reinforce and coordinate action at all\nappropriate levels for promoting the prevention of, preparedness for and response to the transboundary\neffects of industrial accidents,\n\nNOTING the importance and usefulness of bilateral and multilateral arrangements for the prevention of,\npreparedness for and response to the effects of industrial accidents,\n\nCONSCIOUS of the role played in this respect by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe\n(ECE) and recalling, inter alia, the ECE Code of Conduct on Accidental Pollution of Transboundary Inland\nWaters and the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context,\n\nHAVING REGARD to the relevant provisions of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and\nCooperation in Europe (CSCE), the Concluding Document of the Vienna Meeting of Representatives of the\nParticipating States of the CSCE, and the outcome of the Sofia Meeting on the Protection of the\nEnvironment of the CSCE, as well as to pertinent activities and mechanisms in the United Nations\nEnvironment Programme (UNEP), in particular the APELL programme, in the International Labour\nOrganisation (ILO), in particular the Code of Practice on the Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents, and\nin other relevant international organisations,\n\nCONSIDERING the pertinent provisions of the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the\nHuman Environment, and in particular principle 21, according to which States have, in accordance with the\nCharter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their\nown resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities\nwithin their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas\nbeyond the limits of national jurisdiction,\n\nTAKING ACCOUNT of the polluter-pays principle as a general principle of international environmental\nlaw,\n\nUNDERLINING the principles of \ngood-neighbourliness, reciprocity, non-discrimination and good faith,\n\ninternational \n\nlaw and custom, \n\nin particular the principles of\n\nHAVE AGREED as follows:\n\n\f3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/7\n\nArticle 1\n\nDefinitions\n\nArticle 2\n\nScope\n\nFor the purposes of this Convention:\n\n(a) \u2018industrial accident\u2019 means an event resulting from an\nin the course of any\n\nuncontrolled development \nactivity involving hazardous substances either:\n\n(i) in \n\nan \n\ninstallation, \n\nduring\nmanufacture, use, storage, handling, or disposal;\nor\n\nexample \n\nfor \n\n1. This Convention shall apply to the prevention of,\npreparedness for and response to industrial accidents\ncapable of causing transboundary effects, including the\neffects of such accidents caused by natural disasters, and\nto \nconcerning mutual\nassistance, research and development, exchange of\ninformation and exchange of technology in the area of\nprevention of, preparedness for and response to industrial\naccidents. international \n\ncooperation \n\n(ii) during transportation in so far as it is covered by\n\nparagraph 2(d) of Article 2;\n\n(b) \u2018hazardous activity\u2019 means any activity in which one\nor more hazardous substances are present or may be\npresent in quantities at or in excess of the threshold\nquantities listed in Annex I hereto, and which is\ncapable of causing transboundary effects;\n\n(c) \u2018effects\u2019 means any direct or indirect, immediate or\ndelayed adverse consequences caused by an industrial\naccident on; inter alia:\n\n2. This Convention shall not apply to:\n\n(a) nuclear accidents or radiological emergencies;\n\n(b) accidents at military installations;\n\n(c) dam failures, with the exception of the effects of\n\nindustrial accidents caused by such failures;\n\n(d) land-based transport accidents with the exception of:\n\n(i) human beings, flora and fauna;\n\n(i) emergency response to such accidents;\n\n(ii) soil, water, air and landscape;\n\n(ii) transportation on the site of the hazardous\n\n(iii) the interaction between the factors in (i) and\n\n(ii);\n\n(iv) material assets and cultural heritage, including\n\nhistorical monuments;\n\n(d) \u2018transboundary effects\u2019 means serious effects within\nthe jurisdiction of a Party as a result of an industrial\naccident occurring within the jurisdiction of another\nParty;\n\n(e) \u2018operator\u2019 means any natural or \n\nlegal person,\nincluding public authorities, in charge of an activity,\ne. g. supervising, planning to carry out or carrying out\nan activity;\n\n(f) \u2018Party\u2019 means, unless the text otherwise indicates, a\n\nContracting Party to this Convention;\n\n(g) \u2018Party of origin\u2019 means any Party or Parties under\nwhose jurisdiction an industrial accident occurs or is\ncapable of occurring;\n\n(h) \u2018affected Party\u2019 means any Party or Parties affected or\ncapable of being affected by transboundary effects of\nan industrial accident;\n\n(i) \u2018Parties concerned\u2019 means any Party of origin and any\n\naffected Party;\n\nactivity;\n\n(e) accidental release of genetically modified organisms;\n\n(f) accidents caused by activities \nseabed \n\nincluding \n\nenvironment, \nexploitation;\n\nin \nthe marine\nexploration or\n\n(g) spills of oil or other harmful substances at sea. Article 3\n\nGeneral provisions\n\ninternational \n\nlevels, \ncooperate within \n\n1. The Parties shall, taking into account efforts already\ntake\nmade at national and \nappropriate measures and \nthe\nframework of this Convention, to protect human beings\nand the environment against industrial accidents by\npreventing such accidents as far as possible, by reducing\ntheir frequency and severity and by mitigating their\neffects. To \nthis end, preventive, preparedness and\nresponse measures, including restoration measures, shall\nbe applied. (j) \u2018the public\u2019 means one or more natural or legal\n\npersons. 2. The Parties shall, by means of exchange of\ninformation, consultation and other cooperative measures\nand without undue delay, develop and implement policies\n\n\fL 326/8\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nand strategies for reducing the risks of \nindustrial\naccidents and improving preventive, preparedness and\nresponse measures, including restoration measures, taking\ninto account, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication,\nefforts already made at national and international levels. 3. The Parties shall ensure that the operator is obliged\nto take all measures necessary for the safe performance of\nthe hazardous activity and for the prevention of\nindustrial accidents. 4. To implement the provisions of this Convention, the\nParties shall take appropriate \nlegislative, regulatory,\nadministrative and financial measures for the prevention\nof, preparedness \nindustrial\naccidents. for and \n\nresponse \n\nto \n\n5. The provisions of this Convention shall not prejudice\nany obligations of the Parties under international law\nwith regard to \nindustrial accidents and hazardous\nactivities. Article 4\n\nIdentification, consultation and advice\n\n1. For the purpose of undertaking preventie measures\nand setting up preparedness measures, the Party of origin\nshall take measures, as appropriate, to identify hazardous\nactivities within its jurisdiction and to ensure that\naffected Parties are notified of any such proposed or\nexisting activity. 2. Parties concerned shall, at the initiative of any such\nParty, enter into discussions on the identification of those\nhazardous activities that are, reasonably, capable of\ncausing transboundary effects. If the Parties concerned do\nnot agree on whether an activity is such a hazardous\nactivity, any such Party may, unless the Parties concerned\nagree on another method of resolving the question,\nsubmit that question to an \nin\naccordance with the provisions of Annex II hereto for\nadvice. inquiry commission \n\n3. The Parties shall, with respect to proposed or existing\nhazardous activities, apply the procedures set out in\nAnnex III hereto. is subject \n\n4. When a hazardous activity \nto an\nenvironmental impact assessment in accordance with the\nConvention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a\nTransboundary Context and that assessment includes an\nevaluation of the transboundary effects of industrial\naccidents from the hazardous activity which is performed\nin conformity with the terms of this Convention, the final\ndecision taken for the purposes of the Convention on\n\nEnvironmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary\nContext shall fulfil the relevant requirements of this\nConvention. Article 5\n\nVoluntary extension\n\nParties concerned should, at the initiative of any of them,\nenter into discussions on whether to treat an activity not\ncovered by Annex I as a hazardous activity. Upon mutual\nagreement, they may use an advisory mechanism of their\nchoice, or an inquiry commission in accordance with\nAnnex II, to advise them. Where the Parties concerned so\nagree, this Convention, or any part thereof, shall apply to\nthe activity in question as if it were a hazardous\nactivity. Article 6\n\nPrevention\n\n1. The Parties shall take appropriate measures for the\nprevention of industrial accidents, including measures to\ninduce action by operators to reduce the risk of industrial\naccidents. Such measures may include, but are not limited\nto those referred to in Annex IV hereto. 2. With regard to any hazardous activity, the Party of\norigin shall require the operator to demonstrate the safe\nperformance of the hazardous activity by the provision of\ninformation such as basic details of the process including\nbut not limited to, analysis and evaluation as detailed in\nAnnex V hereto. Article 7\n\nDecision-making on siting\n\nWithin the framework of its legal system, the Party of\norigin shall, with the objective of minimising the risk to\nthe population and the environment of all affected\nParties, seek the establishment of policies on the siting of\nnew hazardous activities and on significant modifications\nto existing hazardous activities. Within the framework of\ntheir legal systems, the affected Parties shall seek the\nestablishment of policies on significant developments in\nareas which could be affected by transboundary effects of\nan indusrial accident arising out of a hazardous activity\nso as to minimise the risks involved. In elaborating and\nestablishing these policies, the Parties should consider the\nmatters set out in Annex V, paragraph 2, subparagraphs\n1 to 8, and Annex VI hereto. 3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/9\n\nArticle 8\n\nEmergency preparedness\n\n1. The Parties shall take appropriate measures to\nestablish and maintain adequate emergency preparedness\nto respond to industrial accidents. The Parties shall\nensure that preparedness measures are taken to mitigate\ntransboundary effects of such accidents, on-site duties\nbeing undertaken by operators. These measures may\ninclude, but are not limited to those referred to in Annex\nVII hereto. In particular, the Parties concerned shall\ninform each other of their contingency plans. 2. The Party of origin shall ensure for hazardous\nactivities the preparation and implementation of on-site\ncontingency plans, \nfor\nresponse and other measures to prevent and minimise\ntransboundary effects. The Party of origin shall provide\nto the other Parties concerned the elements it has for the\nelaboration of contingency plans. including suitable measures \n\n3. Each Party shall ensure for hazardous activities the\npreparation and implementation of off-site contingency\nplans covering measures to be taken within its territory\nto prevent and minimise transboundary effects. In\npreparing these plans, account shall be taken of the\nconclusions of analysis and evaluation, in particular the\nmatters set out in Annex V, paragraph 2, subparagraphs\n1 to 5. Parties concerned shall endeavour to make such\njoint off-site\nplans compatible. Where appropriate, \ncontingency plans shall be drawn up in order to facilitate\nthe adoption of adequate response measures. 4. Contingency plans should be reviewed regularly, or\nwhen circumstances so require, taking into account the\nexperience gained in dealing with actual emergencies. 2. The Party of origin shall, in accordance with the\nprovisions of this Convention and whenever possible and\nappropriate, give the public in the areas capable of being\naffected an opportunity \nin relevant\nprocedures with the aim of making known its views and\nconcerns on prevention and preparedness measures, and\nshall ensure that the opportunity given to the public of\nthe affected Party is equivalent to that given to the public\nof the Party of origin. to participate \n\n3. The Parties shall, in accordance with their legal\nsystems and, if desired, on a reciprocal basis provide\nnatural or legal persons who are being or are capable of\nbeing adversely affected by the transboundary effects of\nan industrial accident in the territory of a Party, with\naccess to, and treatment in the relevant administrative\nand judicial proceedings, including the possibilities of\nstarting a legal action and appealing a decision affecting\ntheir rights, equivalent to those available to persons\nwithin their own jurisdiction. Article 10\n\nIndustrial accident notification systems\n\n1. The Parties shall, with the aim of obtaining and\ntransmitting industrial accident notifications containing\ninformation needed to counteract transboundary effects,\nprovide \nthe establishment and operation of\ncompatible and efficient industrial accident notification\nsystems at appropriate levels. for \n\n2. In the event of an industrial accident, or imminent\nthreat thereof, which causes or is capable of causing\ntransboundary effects, the Party of origin shall ensure\nthat affected Parties are, without delay, notified at\nappropriate \nindustrial accident\nnotification systems. Such notification shall include the\nelements contained in Annex IX hereto. through \n\nlevels \n\nthe \n\nArticle 9\n\nInformation to, and participation of the public\n\n3. The Parties concerned shall ensure that, in the event\nof an industrial accident or imminent threat thereof, the\ncontingency plans prepared in accordance with Article 8\nare activated as soon as possible and to the extent\nappropriate to the circumstances. 1. The Parties shall ensure that adequate information is\ngiven to the public in the areas capable of being affected\nby an industrial accident arising out of a hazardous\nactivity. This information shall be transmitted through\nsuch channels as the Parties deem appropriate, shall\ninclude the elements contained in Annex VIII hereto and\nshould take into account matters set out in Annex V,\nparagraph 2, subparagraphs 1 to 4 and 9. Article 11\n\nResponse\n\n1. The Parties shall ensure that, in the event of an\nindustrial accident, or imminent threat thereof, adequate\n\n\fL 326/10\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nresponse measures are taken, as soon as possible and\nusing the most efficient practices, to contain and\nminimise effects. including research into less hazardous processes aimed at\nlimiting accident hazards and preventing and limiting the\nconsequences of industrial accidents. 2. In the event of an industrial accident, or imminent\nthreat thereof, which causes or is capable of causing\ntransboundary effects, the Parties concerned shall ensure\nthat the effects are assessed \u2014 where appropriate, jointly\nfor the purpose of taking adequate response measures. The Parties concerned shall endeavour to coordinate their\nresponse measures. Article 15\n\nExchange of information\n\nThe Parties shall, at the multilateral or bilateral level,\nexchange reasonably obtainable information, including\nthe elements contained in Annex XI hereto. Article 12\n\nMutual assistance\n\nArticle 16\n\nExchange of technology\n\n1. If a Party needs assistance in the event of an\nindustrial accident, it may ask for assistance form other\nParties, indicating the scope and type of assistance\nrequired. A Party to whom a request for assistance is\ndirected shall promptly decide and inform the requesting\nParty whether it is in a position to render the assistance\nrequired and \nindicate the scope and terms of the\nassistance that might be rendered. 2. The Parties concerned shall cooperate to facilitate the\nprompt provision of assistance agreed to under paragraph\n1 of this Article, including, where appropriate, action to\nminimise the consequences and effects of the industrial\naccident, and to provide general assistance. Where Parties\ndo not have bilateral or multilateral agreements which\ncover their arangements for providing mutual assistance,\nthe assistance shall be rendered in accordance with\nAnnex X hereto, unless the Parties agree otherwise. Article 13\n\nResponsibility and liability\n\nThe Parties shall support appropriate international efforts\nto elaborate rules, criteria and procedures in the field of\nresponsiblity and liability. Article 14\n\nResearch and development\n\nThe Parties shall, as appropriate, initiate and cooperate in\nthe conduct of reseach into, and in the development of\nmethods and \nthe prevention of,\npreparedness for and response to industrial accidents. For\nthese purposes, the Parties shall encourage and actively\ncooperation,\npromote \n\nscientific and \n\ntechnological \n\ntechnologies \n\nfor \n\nshall, consistent with \n\n1. The Parties \nlaws,\nregulations and practices, facilitate the exchange of\ntechnology for the prevention of, preparedness for and\nresponse to the effects of industrial accidents, particularly\nthrough the promotion of:\n\ntheir \n\n(a) exchange of available technology on various financial\n\nbases;\n\n(b) direct industrial contacts and cooperation;\n\n(c) exchange of information and experience;\n\n(d) provision of technical assistance. 2. In promoting the activities specified in paragraph 1,\nsubparagraphs (a) to (d) of this Article, the Parties shall\ncreate favourable conditions by facilitating contacts and\ncooperation among appropriate organisations and\nindividuals in both the private and the public sectors that\nare capable of providing \ntechnology, design and\nengineering services, equipment or finance. Article 17\n\nCompetent authorities and points of contact\n\n1. Each Party shall designate or estalbish one or more\ncompetent authorities \nthis\nfor \nConvention. the purposes of \n\n2. Without prejudice to other arrangements at the\nbilateral or multilateral level, each Party shall designate\nor establish one point of contact for the purpose of\nindustrial accident notifications pursuant to Article 10,\nand one point of contact for the purpose of mutual\nassistance pursuant to Article 12. These points of contact\nshould preferably be the same. 3. Each Party shall, within three months of the date of\nentry into force of this Convention for that Party, inform\nthe other Parties, through the Secretariat referred to in\n\n\f3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/11\n\nArticle 20, which body or bodies it has designated as its\npoint(s) of contact and as its competent authority or\nauthorities. 4. Each Party shall, within one month of the date of\ndecision, \nthe\nSecretariat, of any changes regarding the designation(s) it\nhas made under paragraph 3 of this Article. the other Parties, \n\nthrough \n\ninform \n\n5. Each Party shall keep its point of contact and\nindustrial accident notification systems pursuant to\nArticle 10 operational at all times. 6. Each Party shall keep its point of contact and the\nauthorities responsible for making and receiving requests\nfor, and accepting offers of assistance pursuant to Article\n12 operational at all times. Article 18\n\nConference of the Parties\n\n1. The representatives of the Parties shall consitute the\nConference of the Parties of this Convention and hold\ntheir meetings on a regular basis. The first meeting of the\nConference of the Parties shall be convened not later than\none year after the date of the entry into force of this\nConvention. Thereafter, a meeting of the Conference of\nthe Parties shall be held at least once a year or at the\nwritten request of any Party, provided that, within six\nmonths of the request being communicated to them by\nthe Secretariat, it is supported by at least one third of the\nParties. 2. The Conference of the Parties shall:\n\n(a) review the implementation of this Convention;\n\n(b) carry out advisory functions aimed at strengthening\nthe ability of Parties to prevent, prepare for and\nrespond to the transboundary effects of industrial\naccidents, and at facilitating the provision of technical\nassistance and advice at the request of Parties faced\nwith industrial accidents;\n\n(c) establish, as appropriate, working groups and other\nappropriate mechanisms to consider matters related\nto the \nimplementation and development of this\nConvention and, to this end, to prepare appropriate\nsubmit\nstudies and other documentation and \nrecommendations for consideration by the Conference\nof the Parties;\n\n(d) fulfil such other functions as may be appropriate\n\nunder the provisions of this Convention;\n\n(e) at its first meeting, consider and, by consensus, adopt\n\nrules of procedure for its meetings. 3. The Conference of the Parties, in discharging its\nit deems appropriate, also\nfunctions, shall when \ncooperate \ninternational\norganisations. relevant \n\nother \n\nwith \n\n4. The Conference of the Parties shall, at its first\nmeeting, establish a programme of work, in particular\nwith regard to the items contained in Annex XII hereto. The Conference of the Parties shall also decide on the\nmethod of work, including the use of national centres\nand cooperation with relevant international organisations\nand the establishment of a system with a view to\nfacilitating the implementation of this Convention, in\nparticular for mutual assistance in the event of an\nindustrial accident, and building upon pertinent existing\nactivities within relevant international organisations. As\npart of the programme of work, the Conference of the\nParties shall review existing national, regional and\ninternational centres, and other bodies and programmes\naimed at coordinating information and efforts in the\nprevention of, preparedness for and response to industrial\naccidents, with a view to determining what additional\ninternational institutions or centres may be needed to\ncarry out the tasks listed in Annex XII. 5. The Conference of the Parties shall, at its first\nmeeting, commence consideration of procedures to create\nmore \nthe exchange of\ntechnology for the prevention of, preparedness for and\nresponse to the effects of industrial acccidents. favourable conditions \n\nfor \n\n6. The Confernece of the Parties shall adopt guidelines\nand criteria to facilitate the identification of hazardous\nactivities for the purposes of this Convention. Article 19\n\nRight to vote\n\n1. Except as provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article,\neach Party to this Convention shall have one vote. 2. Regional economic \nintegration organisations as\ndefined in Article 27 shall, in matters within their\ncompetence, exercise their right to vote with a number of\nvotes equal to the number of their member States which\nare Parties to this Convention. Such organisations shall\nnot exercise their right to vote if their member States\nexercise theirs, and vice versa. Article 20\n\nSecretariat\n\nThe executive secretary of the Economic Comission for\nEurope \nsecretariat\nfunctions:\n\nshall carry out \n\nfollowing \n\nthe \n\n\fL 326/12\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\n(a) convene and prepare meetings of the Parties;\n\n(b) transmit to the Parties reports and other information\nreceived in accordance with the provisions of this\nConvention;\n\n(c) such other functions as may be determined by the\n\nParties. Article 21\n\nSettlement of disputes\n\n1. If a dispute arises between two or more Parties about\nthe interpretation or application of this Convention, they\nshall seek a solution by negotiation or by any other\nmethod of dispute settlement acceptable to the parties to\nthe dispute. 2. When signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or\nacceding to this Convention, or at any time thereafter, a\nParty may declare in writing to the Depositary that, for a\ndispute not resolved in accordance with paragraph 1 of\nthis Article, it accepts one or both of the following means\nof dispute settlement as compulsory in relation to any\nParty accepting the same obligation:\n\n(a) submission of the dispute to the International Court\n\nof Justice;\n\n(b) arbitration in accordance with the procedure set out\n\nin Annex XIII hereto. If the parties to the dispute have accepted both means\n3. of dispute settlement referred to in paragraph 2 of this\nArticle, the dispute may be submitted only to the\nInternational Court of Justice, unless the parties to the\ndispute agree otherwise. Article 22\n\nLimitations on the supply of information\n\n1. The provisions of this Convention shall not affect the\nrights or the obligations of Parties in accordance with\ntheir national laws, regulations, administrative provisions\nor accepted legal practices and applicable international\nregulations to protect information related to personal\ndata, \nincluding\nintellectual property, or national security. industrial and commercial secrecy, \n\nIf a Party nevertheless decides to supply such\n2. protected \ninformation to another Party, the Party\nreceiving such protected information shall respect the\nconfidentiality of the \ninformation received and the\nconditions under which it is supplied, and shall only use\nthat information for the purposes for which it was\nsupplied. Article 23\n\nImplementation\n\nParties \n\nThe \nimplementation of this Convention. report \n\nshall \n\nperiodically \n\non \n\nthe\n\nArticle 24\n\nBilateral and multilateral agreements\n\nimplement their\n1. The Parties may, \nobligations under this Convention, continue existing or\nenter into new bilateral or multilateral agreements or\nother arrangements. in order to \n\n2. The provisions of this Convention shall not affect the\nright of Parties to take, by bilateral or multilateral\nagreement where appropriate, more stringent measures\nthan those required by this Convention. Article 25\n\nStatus of Annexes\n\nThe Annexes to this Convention form an integral part of\nthe Convention. Article 26\n\nAmendments to the Convention\n\n1. Any Party may propose amendments \nConvention. to \n\nthis\n\n2. The text of any proposed amendment to this\nConvention shall be submitted in writing to the Executive\nSecretary of the Economic Commission for Europe, who\nshall circulate it to all Parties. The Conference of the\nParties shall discuss proposed amendments at its next\nannual meeting, provided that such proposals have been\ncirculated to the Parties by the executive secretary of the\nEconomic Commission for Europe at least 90 days in\nadvance. 3. For amendments to this Convention \u2014 other than\nthose to Annex I, for which the procedure is described in\nparagraph 4 of this Article:\n\n(a) amendments shall be adopted by consensus of the\nParties present at the meeting and shall be submitted\nby the Depositary to all Parties for ratification,\nacceptance or approval;\n\n(b) instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval of\namendments shall be deposited with the Depositary. Amendments adopted in accordance with this Article\nshall enter into force for Parties that have accepted\n\n\f3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/13\n\nthem on the 90th day following the day of receipt by\nthe Depositary of the 16th instrument of ratification,\nacceptance or approval;\n\nCommission for Europe to which their member States\nhave transferred competence \nin respect of matters\ngoverned by this Convention, including the competence\nto enter into treaties in respect of these matters. (c) thereafter, amendments shall enter into force for any\nother Party on the 90th day after that Party deposits\nits instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval\nof the amendments. Article 28\n\nDepositary\n\n4. For amendments to Annex I:\n\nThe Secretary-General of the United Nations shall act as\nthe Depositary of this Conveniton. no \n\nand \n\nagreement \n\n(a) the Parties shall make every effort to reach agreement\nby consensus. If all efforts at consensus have been\nexhausted \nthe\namendments shall, as a last resort, be adopted by a\nnine-tenths majority vote of the Parties present and\nvoting at the meeting. If adopted by the Conference\nof \nbe\ncommunicated to the Parties and recommended for\napproval;\n\namendments \n\nreached, \n\nParties, \n\nshall \n\nthe \n\nthe \n\n(b) on the expiry of 12 months from the date of their\ncommunication by the Executive Secretary of the\nEconomic Commission for Europe, the amendments\nto Annex I shall become effective for those Parties to\nthis Convention which have not submitted a\nnotification in accordance with the provisions of\nparagraph 4(c) of this Article, provided that at least\n16 Parties hae not submitted such a notification;\n\n(c) any Party that is unable to approve an amendment to\nAnnex I of this Convention shall so notify the\nexecutive secretary of the Economic Commission for\nEurope in writing within 12 months from the date of\nthe communication of the adoption. The executive\nsecretary shall without delay notify all Parties of any\nsuch notification received. A Party may at any time\nsubstitute an acceptance for its previous notification\nand the amendment to Annex I shall thereupon enter\ninto force for that Party;\n\n(d) for the purpose of this paragraph \u2018Parties present and\nvoting\u2019 means Parties present and casting an\naffirmative or negative vote. Article 29\n\nRatification, acceptance, approval and accession\n\n1. This Convention shall be subject to ratification,\nacceptance or approval by the signatory States and\nregional economic integration organisations referred to in\nArticle 27. 2. This Convention shall be open for accession by the\nStates and organisations referred to in Article 27. 3. Any organisations referred to in Article 27 which\nbecomes Party to this Convention without any of its\nmember States being a Party shall be bound by all the\nobligations under this Convention. In the case of such\norganisations, one or more of whose member States is a\nits\nParty to this Convention, the organisation and \nmember States \nrespective\nshall decide on \nresponsibilities for the performance of their obligations\nunder this Convention. In such cases, the organisation\nand the member States shall not be entitled to exercise\nrights under this Convention concurrently. their \n\nIn \n\ntheir \n\n4. instruments of ratification, acceptance,\napproval or accession, the regional economic integration\norganisations referred to in Article 27 shall declare the\nextent of their competence with respect to the matters\ngoverned by this Convention. These organisations shall\nalso inform the Depositary of an substantial modification\nto the extent of their competence. Article 27\n\nSignature\n\nThis Convention shall be open for signature at Helsinki\nfrom 17 to 18 March 1992 inclusive, and thereafter at\nUnited Nations headquarters in New York until 18\nSeptember 1992, by States members of the Economic\nCommission for Europe, as well as States having\nconsultative status with the Economic Commission for\nEurope pursuant to paragraph 8 of Economic and Social\nCouncil Resolution 36 (IV) of 28 March 1947, and by\nregional economic integration organisations constituted\nthe Economic\nby \n\nsovereign States members of \n\nArticle 30\n\nEntry into force\n\n1. This Convention shall enter into force on the 90th\nday after the date of deposit of the 16th instrument of\nratification, acceptance, approval or accession. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1 of this Article, any\ninstrument deposited by an organisation referred to in\nArticle 27 shall not be counted as additional to those\ndeposited by States members of such an organisation. 3. For each State or organisation referred to in Article\n27 which ratifies, accepts or approves this Convention or\n\n\fL 326/14\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\naccedes thereto after the deposit of this 16th instrument\nof ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, this\nConvention shall enter into force on the 90th day after\nthe date of deposit by such State or organisation of its\ninstrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or\naccession. withdrawal shall take effect on the 90th day after the\ndate of the receipt of the notification by the Depositary. 2. Any such withdrawal shall not affect the application\nof Article 4 to an activity in respect of which a\nnotification has been made pursuant to Article 4,\nparagraph 1, or a request for discussions has been made\npursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2. Article 31\n\nWithdrawal\n\nArticle 32\n\nAuthentic texts\n\n1. At any time after three years from the date on which\nthis Convention has come into force with respect to a\nParty, that Party may withdraw from this Convention by\ngiving written notification to the Depositary. Any such\n\nThe original of this Convention, of which the English,\nFrench and Russian texts are equally authentic, shall be\ndeposited with the Secretary-General of the United\nNations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this\nConvention. DONE at Helsinki, this seventeenth day of March one thousand nine hundred and ninety-two. 3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/15\n\nANNEX I\n\nHAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEFINING HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES\n\nThe quantities set out below relate to each activity or group of activities. Where a range of quantities is\ngiven in Part I, the threshold quantities are the maximum quantities given in each range. Five years after the\nentry into force of this Convention, the lowest quantity given in each range shall become the threshold\nquantity, unless amended. Where a substance or preparation named in Part II also falls within a category in Part I, the threshold\nquantity set out in Part II shall be used. For the identification of hazardous activities, Parties shall take into consideration the foreseeable possibility\nof aggravation of the hazards involved and the quantities of the hazardous substances and their proximity,\nwheter under the charge of one or more operators. Categories of substances and preparations not specifically named in Part II\n\nPART I\n\nCategory\n\nThreshold quantity\n(Tonnes)\n\n1. Flammable gases (1a) including LPG\n\n2. Highly flammable liquids (1b)\n\n3. Very toxic (1c)\n\n4. Toxic (1d)\n\n5. Oxidising (1e)\n\n6. Explosive (1f)\n\n7. Flammable liquids (1g) (handled under special conditions of pressure and\n\ntemperature)\n\n8. Dangerous for the environment (1h)\n\n200\n\n50 000\n\n20\n\n500-200\n\n500-200\n\n200-50\n\n200\n\n200\n\nPART II\n\nNamed substances\n\nSubstance\n\nThreshold quantity\n(Tonnes)\n\n1. Ammonia\n\n2. a) Ammonium nitrate (2)\n\nb) Ammonium nitrate in the form of fertilisers (3)\n\n3. Acrylonitrile\n\n4. Chlorine\n\n5. Ethylene oxide\n\n6. Hydrogen cyanide\n\n7. Hydrogen fluoride\n\n8. Hydrogen sulphide\n\n9. Sulphur dioxide\n\n10. Sulphur trioxide\n\n11. Lead alkyls\n\n12. Phosgene\n\n13. Methyl isocyanate\n\n500\n\n2 500\n\n10 000\n\n200\n\n25\n\n50\n\n20\n\n50\n\n50\n\n250\n\n75\n\n50\n\n0,75\n\n0,15\n\n\fL 326/16\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nNOTES\n\n(1) Indicative criteria. In the absence of other appropriate criteria, Parties may use the following criteria when classifying\nsubstances or preparations for the purposes of Part I of this Annex:\n\n(a) Flammable gases:\n\nsubstances which in the gaseous state at normal pressure and mixed with air become flammable and\nthe boiling point of which at normal pressure is 20 \u00b0C or below;\n\n(b) Highly flammable liquids:\n\nsubstances which have a flash point lower than 21 \u00b0C and the boiling point of which at normal\npressure is above 20 \u00b0C;\n\n(c) Very toxic:\n\nsubstances with properties corresponding to those in Table 1 or Table 2 below, and which, owing to\ntheir physical and chemical properties, are capable of creating industrial accident hazards;\n\nTable 1\n\nLD50 (oral) (1)\nmg/kg body weight\nLD50 # 25\n\nLD50 (dermal) (2)\nmg/kg body weight\nLD50 # 50\n\nLC50 (3) mg/l (inhalation)\nLC50 # 0,5\n\n(1) LD50 oral in rats. (2) LD50 dermal in rats or rabbits. (3) LC50 by inhalation (four hours) in rats. Table 2\n\nDiscriminating dose\nmg/kg body weight\n\n, 5\n\nwhere the acute oral toxicity in animals of the substance has been determined using the\nfixed-dose procedure. (d) Toxic:\n\nsubstances with properties corresponding to those in Table 3 or Table 4 and having physical and\nchemical properties capable of creating industrial accident hazards. Table 3\n\nLD50 (oral) (1)\nmg/kg body weight\n25 , LD50 # 200\n\nLD50 (dermal) (2)\nmg/kg body weight\n50 , LD50 # 400\n\nLC50 (3) mg/l (inhalation)\n0,5 , LC50 # 2\n\n(1) LD50 oral in rats. (2) LD50 dermal in rats or rabbits. (3) LC50 by inhalation (four hours) in rats. Table 4\n\nDiscriminating dose\nmg/kg body weight\n\n= 5\n\nwhere the acute oral toxicity in animals of the substance has been determined using the\nfixed-dose procedure. 3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/17\n\n(e) Oxidising:\n\nsubstances which give rise to highly exothermic reaction when in contact with other substances,\nparticularly flammable substances;\n\n(f) Explosive:\n\nsubstances which may explode under the effect of flame or which are more sensitive to shocks or\nfriction than dinitrobenzene;\n\n(g) Flammable liquids:\n\nsubstances which have a flash point lower than 55 \u00b0C and which remain liquid under pressure,\nwhere particular processing conditions, such as high pressure and high temperature, may create\nindustrial accident hazards;\n\n(h) Dangerous for the environment:\n\nsubstances showing the values for acute toxicity to the aquatic environment corresponding to\nTable 5. Table 5\n\nEC50 (2)\nmg/l\nEC50 # 10\n\nIC50 (3)\nmg/l\nIC50 # 10\n\nLC50 (1)\nmg/l\nLC50 # 10\n\n(1) LC50 fish (96 hours). (2) EC50 daphnia (48 hours). (3) IC50 algae (72 hours). where the substance is not readily degradable, or the log Pow. 3,0 (unless the experimentally\ndetermined BCF , 100). (i) LD \u2014 lethal dose;\n\n(j) LC \u2014 lethal concentration;\n\n(k) EC \u2014 effective concentration;\n\n(l) IC \u2014 inhibiting concentration;\n\n(m) Pow \u2014 partition coefficient octanol/water;\n\n(n) BCF \u2014 bioconcentration factor. (2) This applies to ammonium nitrate and mixtures of ammonium nitrate where the nitrogen content\nderived from the ammonium nitrate is. 28 % by weight, and to aqueous solutions of ammonium\nnitrate where the concentration of ammonium nitrate is. 90 % by weight. (3) This applies to straight ammonium nitrate fertilisers and to compound fertilisers where the nitrogen\ncontent derived from the ammonium nitrate is. 28 % by weight (a compound fertiliser contains\nammonium nitrate together with phosphate and/or potash). (4) Mixtures and preparations containing such substances shall be treated in the same way as the pure\nsubstances unless they no longer exhibit equivalent properties and are not capable of producing\ntransboundary effects. L 326/18\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nANNEX II\n\nInquiry commission procedure pursuant to Articles 4 and 5\n\n1. The requesting Party/Parties shall notify the Secretariat that it/they is/are submitting question(s) to an\ninquiry commission established in accordance with the provisions of this Annex. The notification shall\nstate the subject matter of the inquiry. The Secretariat shall immediately inform all Parties to the\nConvention of this submission. 2. The inquiry commission shall consist of three members. Both the requesting party and the other party\nto the inquiry procedure shall appoint a scientific or technical expert and the two experts so appointed\nshall designate by common aggreement a third expert, who shall be the president of the inquiry\ncommission. The latter shall not be a national of one of the parties to the inquiry procedure, nor have\ndealt with the case in any other capacity. 3. 4. If the president of the inquiry commission has not been designated within two months of the\nappointment of the second expert, the executive secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe\nshall, at the request of either party, designate the president within a further two-month period. If one of the parties to the inquiry procedure does not appoint an expert within one month of its\nreceipt of the notification by the Secretariat, the other party may inform the executive secretary of the\nEconomic Commission for Europe, who shall designate the president of the inquiry commission within\na further two-months period. Upon designation, the president of the inquiry commission shall request\nthe party which has not appointed an expert to do so within one month. If it fails to do so within that\nperiod, the president shall inform the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe\nwho shall make this appointment within a further two-month period. 5. The inquiry commission shall adopt its own rules of procedure. 6. The inquiry commission may take all appropriate measures in order to carry out its functions. 7. The parties to the inquiry procedure shall facilitate the work of the inquiry commission and in\n\nparticular shall, using all means at their disposal:\n\n(a) provide the inquiry commission with all relevant documents, facilities and information;\n\n(b) enable the inquiry commission, where necessary, to call witness or experts and receive their\n\nevidence. 8. The parties and the experts shall protect the confidentiality of any information they receive in\n\nconfidence during the work of the inquiry commission. 9. If one of the parties to the inquiry procedure does not appear before the inquiry commission or fails to\npresent its case, the other party may request the inquiry commission to continue the proceedings and to\ncomplete its work. Absence of a party or failure of a party to present its case shall not constitute a bar\nto the continuation and completion of the work of the inquiry commission. 10. Unless the inquiry commission determines otherwise because of the particular circumstances of the\nmatter, the expenses of the inquiry commission, including the remuneration of its members, shall be\nborne equally by the parties to the inquiry procedure. The inquiry commission shall keep a record of all\nits expenses and shall furnish a final statement thereof to the parties. 11. Any Party which has an interest of a factual nature in the subject matter of the inquiry procedure and\nwhich may be affected by an opinion in the matter may intervene in the proceedings with the consent\nof the inquiry commission. 3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/19\n\n12. The decisions of the inquiry commission on matters of the procedure shall be taken by majority vote of\nits members. The final opinion of the inquiry commission shall reflect the view of the majority of its\nmembers and shall include any dissenting view. 13. The inquiry commission shall present its final opinion within two months of the date on which it was\nestablished, unless it finds it necessary to extend this time limit for a period which should not exceed\ntwo months. 14. The final opinion of the inquiry commmission shall be based on accepted scientific principles. The final\nopinion shall be transmitted by the inquiry commission to the parties to the inquiry procedure and to\nthe Secretariat. L 326/20\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nANNEX III\n\nPROCEDURES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 4\n\n1. A Party of origin may request consultations with another Party, in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 5\n\nof this Annex, in order to determine whether that Party is an affected Party. 2. For a proposed or existing hazardous activity, the Party of origin shall, for the purposes of ensuring\nadequate and effective consultations, provide for the notification at appropriate levels of any Party that\nit considers may be an affected party as early as possible and no later than when informing its own\npublic about that proposed or existing activity. For existing hazardous activities such notification shall\nbe provided no later than two years after the entry into force of this Convention for a Party of\norigin. 3. The notification shall contain, inter alia:\n\n(a) information on the hazardous activity, including any available information or report, such as\ninformation produced in accordance with Article 6, on its possible transboundary effects in the\nevent of an industrial accident;\n\n(b) an indication of a reasonable time within which a response under paragraph 4 of this Annex is\n\nrequired, taking into account the nature of the activity;\n\nand may include the information set out in paragraph 6 of this Annex. 4. The notified Parties shall respond to the Party of origin within the time specified in the notification,\nacknowledging receipt of the notification and indicating whether they intend to enter into\nconsultation. 5. If a notified Party indicates that it does not intend to enter into consultation, or if it does not respond\nwithin the time specified in the notification, the provisions set down in the following paragraphs of this\nAnnex shall not apply. In such circumstances, the right of a Party of origin to determine whether to\ncarry out an assessment and analysis on the basis of its national law and practice is not prejudiced. 6. Upon receipt of a response from a notified Party indicating its desire to enter into consultation, the\n\nParty of origin shall, if it has not already done so, provide to the notified Party:\n\n(a) relevant information regarding the time schedule for analysis, including an indication of the time\n\nschedule for the transmittal of comments;\n\n(b) relevant information on the hazardous activity and its transboundary effects in the event of an\n\nindustrial accident;\n\n(c) the opportunity to participate in evaluations of the information or any report demonstrating\n\npossible transboundary effects. 7. An affected Party shall, at the request of the Party of origin, provide the latter with reasonably\nobtainable information relating to the area under the jurisdiction of the affected party capable of being\naffected, where such information is necessary for the preparation of the assessment and analysis and\nmeasures. The information shall be furnished promptly and, as appropriate, through a joint body\nwhere one exists. 8. The Party of origin shall furnish the affected party directly, as appropriate, or, where one exists,\nthrough a joint body with the analysis and evaluation documentation as described in Annex V,\nparagraphs 1 and 2. 9. The Parties concerned shall inform the public in areas reasonably capable of being affected by the\nhazardous activity and shall arrange for the distribution of the analysis and evaluation documentation\nto it and to authorities in the relevant areas. The parties shall ensure them an opportunity for making\n\n\f3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/21\n\ncomments on, or objections to, the hazardous activity and shall arrange for their views to be submitted\nto the competent authority of the Party of origin, either directly to that authority or, where\nappropriate, through the Party of origin, within a reasonable time. 10. The Party of origin shall, after completion of the analysis and evaluation documentation, enter without\nundue delay into consultations with the affected Party concerning, inter alia, the transboundary effects\nof the hazardous activity in the event of an industrial accident, and measures to reduce or eliminate its\neffects. The consultations may relate to:\n\n(a) possible alternatives to the hazardous activity, including the no-action alternative, and possible\n\nmeasures to mitigate transboundary effects at the expense of the Party of origin;\n\n(b) other forms of possible mutual assistance for reducing any transboundary effects;\n\n(c) any other appropriate matters. The Parties concerned shall, on the commencement of such consultations, agree on a reasonable\ntime-frame for the duration of the consultation period. Any such consultations may be conducted\nthrough an appropriate joint body, where one exists. 11. The Parties concerned shall ensure that due account is taken of the analysis and evaluation, as well as\nof the comments received pursuant to paragraph 9 of this Annex and of the outcome of the\nconsultations referred to in paragraph 10 of this Annex. 12. The Party of origin shall notify the affected Parties of any decision on the activity, along with the\n\nreasons and considerations on which it was based. 13. If, after additional and relevant information concerning the transboundary effects of a hazardous\nactivity and which was not available at the time consultations were held with respect to that activity,\nbecomes available to a Party concerned, that Party shall immediately inform the other Party or Parties\nconcerned. If one of the Parties concerned so requests, renewed consultations shall be held. L 326/22\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nANNEX IV\n\nPREVENTIVE MEASURES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6\n\nThe following measures may be carried out, depending on national laws and practices, by Parties,\ncompetent authorities, operators, or by joint efforts:\n\n1. the setting of general or specific safety objectives;\n\n2. the adoption of legislative provisions or guidelines concerning safety measures and safety standards;\n\n3. the identification of those hazardous activities which require special preventive measures, which may\n\ninclude a licensing or authorisation system;\n\n4. the evaluation of risk analyses or of safety studies for hazardous activities and an action plan for the\n\nimplementation of necessary measures;\n\n5. the provision to the competent authorities of the information needed to assess risks;\n\n6. the application of the most appropriate technology in order to prevent industrial accidents and protect\n\nhuman beings and the environment;\n\n7. the undertaking, in order to prevent industrial accidents, of the appropriate education and training of all\n\npersons engaged in hazardous activities on-site under both normal and abnormal conditions;\n\n8. the establishment of internal managerial structures and practices designed to implement and maintain\n\nsafety regulations effectively;\n\n9. the monitoring and auditing of hazardous activities and the carrying out of inspections. 3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/23\n\nANNEX V\n\nANALYSIS AND EVALUATION\n\n1. The analysis and evaluation of the hazardous activity should be performed with a scope and to a depth\n\nwhich vary depending on the purpose for which they are carried out. 2. The following table illustrates, for the purposes of the related Articles, matters which should be\n\nconsidered in the analysis and evaluation, for the purposes listed:\n\nPurpose of analysis\n\nMatters to be considered\n\nEmergency planning under Article 8\n\n1. The quantities and properties of hazardous substances on\n\nthe site\n\n2. Brief descriptive scenarios of a representative sample of\nindustrial accidents possibly arising from the hazardous\nactivity, including an indication of the likelihood of each\n\n3. For each scenario:\n\n(a) the approximate quantity of a release;\n\n(b) the extent and severity of the resulting consequences\nboth for people and for the non-human environment in\nfavourable and unfavourable conditions, including the\nextent of resulting hazard zones;\n\n(c) the time-scale within which the industrial accident\n\ncould develop from the initiating event;\n\n(d) any action which could be taken to minimise the\n\nlikelihood of escalation\n\n4. The size and distribution of the population in the vicinity,\nincluding any large concentrations of people potentially in\nthe hazard zone\n\n5. The age, mobility and susceptibility of that population\n\nDecision-making on siting under\nArticle 7\n\nIn addition to items 1 to 5 above:\n\n6. The severity of the harm inflicted on people and the\nenvironment, depending on the nature and circumstances\nof the release\n\n7. The distance from the location of the hazardous activity at\nwhich harmful effects on people and the environment may\nreasonably occur in the event of an industrial accident\n\n8. The same information not only for the present situation\nbut also for planned or reasonably forseeable future\ndevelopments\n\nInformation to the public under\nArticle 9\n\nIn addition to items 1 to 4 above:\n\n9. The people who may be affected by an \n\nindustrial\n\naccident\n\n\fL 326/24\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nPurpose of analysis\n\nMatters to be considered\n\nPreventive measures under Article 6\n\nIn addition to items 4 to 9 above, more detailed versions of the\ndescriptions and assessments set out in items 1 to 3 will be\nneeded \nthose\ndescriptions and assessments, the following matters should also\nbe covered\n\nfor preventive measures. In addition \n\nto \n\n10. The conditions and quantities \n\nin which hazardous\n\nmaterials are handled\n\n11. A list of the scenarios for the types of industrial accidents\nwith serious effects, to include examples covering the full\nrange of incident size and the possibility of effects from\nadjacent activities\n\n12. For each scenario, a description of the events which could\ninitiate an industrial accident and the steps whereby it\ncould escalate\n\n13. An assessment, at least in general terms, of the likelihood\nthe\n\nstep occurring, \n\ninto account \n\ntaking \n\nof each \narrangements in 14\n\n14. A description of the preventive measures in terms of both\nequipment and procedures designed to minimise the\nlikelihood of each step occurring\n\n15. An assessment of the effects that deviations from normal\noperating conditions could have, and the consequent\narrangements for safe shut-down of the hazardous activity\nor any part therof in an emergency, and of the need for\nstaff training to ensure that potentially serious deviations\nare recognised at an early stage and appropriate action\ntaken\n\n16. An assessment of the extent to which modifications, repair\nwork and maintenance work on the hazardous activity\ncould place the control measures at risk, and the\nconsequent arrangements \nis\nmaintained\n\nthat control \n\nto ensure \n\n\f3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/25\n\nANNEX VI\n\nDECISION-MAKING ON SITING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7\n\nThe following illustrates the matters which should be considered pursuant to Article 7:\n\n1. the results of risk analysis and evaluation, including an evaluation pursuant to Annex V of the physical\n\ncharacteristics of the area in which the hazardous activity being planned;\n\n2. the results of consultations and public participation processes;\n\n3. an analysis of the increase or decrease of the risk caused by any development in the territory of the\n\naffected Party in relation to an existing hazardous activity in the territory of the Party of origin;\n\n4. the evaluation of the environmental risks, including any transboundary effects;\n\n5. an evaluation of the new hazardous activities which could be a source of risk;\n\n6. a consideration of the siting of new, and significant modifications to existing hazardous activities at a\nsafe distance from existing centres of population, as well as the establishment of a safety area around\nhazardous activities; within such areas, developments which would increase the populations at risk, or\notherwise increase the severity of the risk, should be closely examined. L 326/26\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nANNEX VII\n\nEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS MEASURES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 8\n\n1. All contingency plans, both on- and off-site, should be coordinated to provide a comprehensive and\n\neffective response to industrial accidents. 2. The contingency plans should include the actions necessary to localise emergencies and to prevent or\nminimise their transboundary effects. They should also include arrangements for warning people and,\nwhere appropriate, arrangements for their evacuation, other protective or rescue actions and health\nservices. 3. Contingency plans should give on-site personnel, people who might be affected off site and rescue forces,\ndetails of technical and organisational procedures which are appropriate for response in the event of an\nindustrial accident capable of having transboundary effects and to prevent and minimise effects on\npeople and the environment, both on and off site. 4. Examples of matters which could be covered by on-site contingency plans include:\n\n(a) organisational roles and responsibilities on site for dealing with an emergency;\n\n(b) a description of the action which should be taken in the event of an industrial accident, or an\nimminent threat thereof, in order to control the condition or event, or details of where such a\ndescription can be found;\n\n(c) a description of the equipment and resources available;\n\n(d) arrangements for providing early warning of industrial accidents to the public authority responsible\nfor the off-site emergency response, including the type of information which should be included in an\ninitial warning and the arrangements for providing more detailed information as it becomes\navailable;\n\n(e) arrangements for training personnel in the duties they will be expected to perform. 5. Examples of matters which could be covered by off-site contingency plans include:\n\n(a) organisational roles and responsibilities off site for dealing with an emergency, including how\n\nintegration with on-site plans is to be achieved;\n\n(b) methods and procedures to be followed by emergency and medical personnel;\n\n(c) methods for rapidly determining the affected area;\n\n(d) arrangements for ensuring that prompt industrial accident notification is made to affected or\n\npotentially affected Parties and that that liaison is maintained subsequently;\n\n(e) identification of resources necessary to implement the plan and the arrangements for coordination;\n\n(f) arrangements for providing information to the public including, where appropriate, the arrangements\n\nfor reinforcing and repeating the information provided to the public pursuant to Article 9;\n\n(g) arrangements for training and exercises. 6. Contingency plans could include the measures for: treatment; collection; clean-up; storage; removal and\n\nsafe disposal of hazardous substances and contaminated material; and restoration. 3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/27\n\nANNEX VIII\n\nINFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9\n\n1. The name of the company, address of the hazardous activity and identification by position held of the\n\nperson giving the information. 2. An explanation in simple terms of the hazardous activity, including the risks. 3. The common names or the generic names or the general danger classification of the substances and\npreparations which are involved in the hazardous activity, with an indication of their principal\ndangerous characteristics. 4. General information resulting from an environmental impact assessment, if available and relevant. 5. The general information relating to the nature of an industrial accident that could possibly occur in the\n\nhazardous activity, including its potential effects on the population and the environment. 6. Adequate information on how the affected population will be warned and kept informed in the event\n\nof an industrial accident. 7. Adequate information on the actions the affected population should take and on the behaviour they\n\nshould adopt in the event of an industrial accident. 8. Adequate information on arrangements made regarding the hazardous activity, including liaison with\nthe emergency services, to deal with industrial accidents, to reduce the severity of the industrial\naccidents and to mitigate their effects. 9. General information on the emergency services\u2019 off-site contingency plan, drawn up to cope with any\n\noff-site effects, including the transboundary effects of an industrial accident. 10. General information on special requirements and conditions to which the hazardous activity is subject\naccording the relevant national regulations and/or administrative provisions, including licensing or\nauthorisation systems;\n\n11. Details of where further relevant information can be obtained. L 326/28\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nANNEX IX\n\nINDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 10\n\n1. The industrial accident notification systems shall enable the speediest possible transmission of data and\nforecasts according \nto previously determined codes using compatible data-transmission and\ndata-treatment systems for emergency warning and response, and for measures to minimise and contain\nthe consequences of transboundary effects, taking account of different needs at different levels. 2. The industrial accident notification shall include the following:\n\n(a) the type and magnitude of the industrial accident, the hazardous substances involved (if known), and\n\nthe severity of its possible effects;\n\n(b) the time of occurrence and exact location of the accident;\n\n(c) such other available information as necessary for an efficient response to the industrial accident. 3. The industrial accident notification shall be supplemented at appropriate intervals, or whenever required,\nby further relevant information on the development of the situation concerning transboundary effects. 4. Regular texts and reviews of the effectiveness of the industrial accident notification systems shall be\nundertaken, including the regular training of the personnel involved. Where appropriate, such tests,\nreviews and training shall be performed jointly. 3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/29\n\nANNEX X\n\nMUTUAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12\n\n1. The overall direction, control, coordination and supervision of the assistance is the responsibility of the\nrequesting Party. The personnel involved in the assisting operation shall act in accordance with the\nrelevant laws of the requesting Party. The appropriate authorities of the requesting Party shall\ncooperate with the authority designated by the assisting Party, pursuant to Article 17, as being in\ncharge of the immediate operational supervision of the personnel and the equipment provided by the\nassisting Party. 2. The requesting Party shall, to the extent of its capabilities, provide local facilities and services for the\nproper and effective administration of the assistance, and shall ensure the protection of personnel,\nequipment and materials brought into its territory by, or on behalf of, the assisting Party for such a\npurpose. 3. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties concerned, assistance shall be provided at the expense of the\nrequesting Party. The assisting Party may at any time waive wholly or partly the reimbursement of\ncosts. 4. The requesting Party shall use its best efforts to afford to the assisting Party and persons acting on its\nbehalf the privileges, immunities or facilities necessary for the expeditious performance of their\nassistance functions. The requesting Party shall not be required to apply this provision to its own\nnationals or permanent residents or to afford them the privileges and immunities referred to above. 5. A Party shall, at the request of the requesting or assisting Party, endeavour to facilitate the transit\nthrough its territory of duly notified personnel, equipment and property involved in the assistance to\nand from the requesting Party. 6. The requesting Party shall facilitate the entry into, stay in and departure from its national territory of\n\nduly notified personnel and of equipment and property involved in the assistance. 7. With regard to acts resulting directly from the assistance provided, the requesting Party shall, in respect\nof the death of or injury to persons, damage to or loss of property, or damage to the environment\ncaused within its territory in the course of the provision of the assistance requested, hold harmless and\nindemnify the assisting Party or persons acting on its behalf and compensate them for death or injury\nsuffered by them and for loss of or damage to equipment or other property involved in the assistance. The requesting Party shall be responsible for dealing with claims brought by third parties against the\nassisting Party or persons acting on its behalf. 8. The Parties concerned shall cooperate closely in order to facilitate the settlement of legal proceedings\n\nand claims which could result from assistance operations. 9. Any Party may request assistance relating to the medical treatment or the temporary relocation in the\n\nterritory of another Party of persons involved in an accident. 10. The affected or requesting Party may at any time, after appropriate consultations and by notification,\nrequest the termination of assistance received or provided under this Convention. Once such a request\nhas been made, the Parties concerned shall consult one another with a view to making arrangements\nfor the proper termination of the assistance. L 326/30\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nANNEX XI\n\nEXCHANGE OF INFORMATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 15\n\nInformation shall include the following elements, which can also be the subject of multilateral and bilateral\ncooperation:\n\n(a) legislative and administrative measures, policies, objectives and priorities for prevention, preparedness\nand response, scientific activities and technical measures to reduce the risk of industrial accidents from\nhazardous activities, including the mitigation of transboundary effects;\n\n(b) measures and contingency plans at the appropriate level affecting other Parties;\n\n(c) progammes for monitoring, planning, research and development, including their implementation and\n\nsurveillance;\n\n(d) measures taken regarding prevention of, preparedness for and response to industrial accidents;\n\n(e) experience with industrial accidents and cooperation in response to industrial accidents with\n\ntransboundary effects;\n\n(f) the development and application of the best available technologies for improved environmental\n\nprotection and safety;\n\n(g) emergency preparedness and response;\n\n(h) methods used for the prediction of risks, including criteria for the monitoring and assessment of\n\ntransboundary effects. 3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/31\n\nANNEX XII\n\nTASKS FOR MUTUAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18, PARAGRAPH 4\n\n1. Information and data collection and dissemination\n\n(a) establishment and operation of an industrial accident notification system that can provide\ninformation on industrial accidents and on experts, in order to involve the experts as rapidly as\npossible in providing assistance;\n\n(b) establishment and operation of a data bank for the reception, processing and distribution of\nnecessary information on industrial accidents, including their effects, and also on measures applied\nand their effectiveness;\n\n(c) elaboration and maintenance of a \n\nincluding their relevant\ncharacteristics, and of information on how to deal with those in the event of an industrial\naccident;\n\nlist of hazardous substances, \n\n(d) establishment and maintenance of a register of experts to provide consultative and other kinds of\nincluding restoration\n\nassistance regarding preventive, preparedness and response measures, \nmeasures;\n\n(e) maintenance of a list of hazardous activities;\n\n(f) production and maintenance of a list of hazardous substances covered by the provisions of Annex I,\n\nPart I. 2. Research, training and methodologies\n\n(a) development and provision of models based on experience from industrial accidents, and scenarios\n\nfor preventive, preparedness and response measures;\n\n(b) promotion of education and training, organisation of international symposia and promotion of\n\ncooperation in research and development. 3. Technical assistance\n\n(a) fulfillment of advisory functions aimed at strengthening the ability to apply preventive, preparedness\n\nand response measures;\n\n(b) undertaking, at the request of a Party, of inspections of its hazardous activities and the provision of\nassistance in organising its national inspections according to the requirements of this Convention. 4. Assistance in the case of an emergency\n\nProvision, at the request of a Party, of assistance by, inter alia, sending experts to the site of an\nindustrial accident to provide consultative and other kinds of assistance in response to the industrial\naccident. L 326/32\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n3. 12. 98\n\nANNEX XIII\n\nARBITRATION\n\n1. The claimant Party or Parties shall notify the Secretariat that the Parties have agreed to submit the\ndispute to arbitration pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 2 of this Convention. The notification shall\nstate the subject matter of arbitration and include, in particular, the Articles of this Convention, the\ninterpretation or application of which is at issue. The Secretariat shall forward the information received\nto all Parties to this Convention. 2. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of three members. Both the claimant Party or Parties and the other\nParty or Parties to the dispute shall appoint an arbitrator, and the two arbitrators so appointed shall\ndesignate by common agreement the third arbitrator, who shall be the president of the arbitral tribunal. The latter shall not be a national of one of the parties to the dispute, nor have his or her usual place of\nresidence in the territory of one of these parties, nor be employed by any of them, nor have dealt with\nthe case in any other capacity. 3. 4. If the president of the arbitral tribunal has not been designated within two months of the appointment\nof the second arbitrator, the executive secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe shall, at the\nrequest of either party to the dispute, designate the president within a further two-month period. If one of the parties to the dispute does not appoint an arbitrator within two months of the receipt of\nthe request, the other party may so inform the executive secretary of the Economic Commission for\nEurope, who shall designate the president of the arbitral tribunal within a further two-month period. Upon designation, the president of the arbitral tribunal shall request the party which has not appointed\nan arbitrator to do so within two months. If it fails to do so within that period, the president shall\ninform the executive secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe, who shall make this\nappointment within a further two-month period. 5. The arbitral tribunal shall render its decision in accordance with international law and in accordance\n\nwith the provisions of this Convention. 6. Any arbitral tribunal constituted under the provisions set out herein shall draw up its own rules of\n\nprocedure. 7. The decisions of the arbitral tribunal, both on procedure and on substance, shall be taken by majority\n\nvote of its members. 8. The tribunal may take all appropriate measures to establish the facts. 9. The parties to the dispute shall facilitate the work of the arbitral tribunal and, in particular shall, using\n\nall means at their disposal:\n\n(a) provide the tribunal with all relevant documents, facilities and information;\n\n(b) enable the tribunal, where necessary, to call witnesses or experts and receive their evidence. 10. The parties to the dispute and the arbitrators shall protect the confidentiality of any information they\n\nreceive in confidence during the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal. 11. The arbitral tribunal may, at the request of one of the parties, recommend interim measures of\n\nprotection. 12. If one of the parties to the dispute does not appear before the arbitral tribunal or fails to defend its\ncase, the other party may request the tribunal to continue the proceedings and to render its final\ndecision. Absence of a party or failure of a party to defend its case shall not constitute a bar to the\nproceedings. 13. The arbitral tribunal may hear and determine counter-claims arising directly out of the subject matter\n\nof the dispute. 3. 12. 98\n\nEN\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\nL 326/33\n\n14. Unless the arbitral tribunal determines otherwise because of the particular circumstances of the case,\nthe expenses of the tribunal, including the remuneration of its members, shall be borne equally by the\nparties to the dispute. The tribunal shall keep a record of all its expenses and shall furnish a final\nstatement thereof to the parties to the dispute. 15. Any Party to this Convention which has an interest of a legal nature in the subject matter of the\ndispute and which may be affected by a decision in the case, may intervene in the proceedings with the\nconsent of the tribunal. 16. The arbitral tribunal shall render its award within five months of the date on which it is established\nunless it finds it necessary to extend the time limit for a period which should not exceed five\nmonths. 17. The award of the arbitral tribunal shall be accompanied by a statement of reasons. It shall be final and\nbinding upon all parties to the dispute. The award will be transmitted by the arbitral tribunal to the\nparties to the dispute and to the Secretariat. The Secretariat will forward the information received to all\nParties to this Convention. 18. Any dispute which may arise between the parties concerning the interpretation or execution of the\naward may be submitted by either party to the tribunal which made the award or, if the latter cannot\nbe seized thereof, to another tribunal constituted for this purpose in the same manner as the first"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cd352e08-f7b9-4a61-9bc5-b41081ce83a1", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the interim extension for the period from 1 March 1992 to 30 April 1992 of the Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco and of the Protocol annexed thereto", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_other,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "Morocco,fishing agreement,fishing permit,sea fishing", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0092,comnat:COM_1992_0092_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Morocco", "fishing agreement", "fishing permit", "sea fishing"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cd352e08-f7b9-4a61-9bc5-b41081ce83a1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(92) 92 final \n\nBrussels, 17 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DECISION \n\non the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of letters \nconcerning the interim extension far the period from 1 March 1992 to 30 \nApril 1992 of the Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector \nbetween the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco and of \nthe Protocol annexed thereto \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\fz \n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nThe fisheries Agreement and the Protocol annexed thereto between the \n\nOommunity and Morocco, which entered into force on 1 March 1988 and was \n\nadopted by the Council on 23 June 1988 by Regulation (EEC) No 2054/88, \n\nexpired on 29 February 1992. Negotiations between the two parties on extension of the Agreement and its \n\nProtocol have not yet reached the stage where new texts can be agreed. In order to avoid interruption of the Community vessels* fishing activities \n\nas from 1 March 1992 and pending the final results of the negotiations, the \n\ntwo parties have agreed on an exchange of letters extending the Agreement \n\nand Protocol curently in force for an interim period from 1 March to 30 \n\nApril 1992. The exchange of letters, initialled on 28 February 1992, provides in return \n\nfor the maintenance of fishing opportunities during the interim period the \n\nextension pro rata temporis of the Community budget appropriations intended \n\nto cover the financial compensation, the contribution to Moroccan \n\nscientific or technical programmes, the grant of awards and the fees to be \n\npaid by shipowners. 3 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DECISION \nof \n\non the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters \nccncsrning the interim extension for the period from 1 March 1992 to 30 \nApril 1992 of the Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector \nbetween the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco and of \nthe Protocol annexed thereto \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CCM1UNITTES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \n\nHaving regard to the Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector \nbetween the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco and to \nthe Protocol annexed to the Agreement, * \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nWhereas the Ccrananity and the Kingdom of Morocco have entered into \nnegotiations as provided for in Article 12(2) of the Agreement to establsih \nthe arrangements to be applied after 29 February 1992, the date on which \nthe Agreement and the Protocol annexed to the Agreement expire; \n\nWhereas the two parties agreed on 28 February 1992 to extend the said \nAgreement and the Protocol annexed thereto for an interim period from \n1 March 1992 to 30 April 1992 pending the result of the said negotiations, \n\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: \n\nArticle 1 \n\nThe Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters csoncerning the interim \nextension for the period from 1 March 1992 to 30 April 1992 of the \nAgreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector between the European \nEconomic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco and of the Protocol annexed \nthereto is hereby approved on behalf of the (Community. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision. Article 2 \n\nThe President of the Council is hereby authorized to designate the persons \nempowered to sign the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters in \norder to bind the Community. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \nThe President \n\nQ J N oL 181, 12. 7. 1988, p. 1. H \n\nA. Letter from the Community \n\nSir, \n\nI have the honour to confirm that we have agreed on the following interim \narrangements to allow the fishing vessels of the EEC to pursue their \nfishing activities in Moroccan waters: \n\n1. With effect from 1 March 1992 to 30 April 1992 the arrangements \napplicable during this interim period shall be those prevailing under \nthe Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector between the \nEuropean Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco and the \nProtocol annexed thereto covering the period 1 March 1988 to 29 \nFebruary 1992. The financial compensation by the Oonuunity and its contribution to \nMoroccan scientific or technical programmes under the interim \narrangements shall be equivalent pro rata temporis to those provided \nfor in Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Protocol currently in application. The pro rata temporis rule shall also apply to the awards \narrangements provided for in Article 3(2) of the Protocol. 2. During the interim period licences shall be allocated within the \nlimits fixed in Article 1 of the Protocol currently in application \n(reference period 1. 3. 1991 to 29. 2. 1992) subject to fees and advances \nwhich are equivalent pro rata temporis to those fixed in point C of \nAnnex 1 to the Agreement (reference period 1. 3. 1991 to 29. 2. 1992). I should be obliged if you would confirm receipt of this letter and your \nagreement to its contents. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. On behalf of the Council \nof the European Communities \n\n\fJ \n\nB. Letter from the Kingdom of Morocco \n\nSir, \n\nI have the honour to confirm receipt of your letter of todays date with \nthe following contents: \n\n\u2022\u2022Sir, \n\nI have the honour to confirm that we have agreed on the following interim \narrangements to allow the fishing vessels of the EEC to pursue their \nfishing activities in Moroccan waters: \n\n1. With effect from 1 March 1992 to 30 April 1992 the arrangements \napplicable during this interim period shall be those prevailing under \nthe Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector between the \nEuropean Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco and the \nProtocol annexed thereto covering the period 1 March 1988 to 29 \nFebruary 1992. The financial compensation by the Community and its contribution to \nMoroccan scientific or technical programmes under the interim \narrangements shall be equivalent pro rata temporis to those provided \nfor in Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Protocol currently in application. The pro rata temporis rule shall also apply to the awards \narrangements provided for in Article 3(2) of the Protocol. 2. During the interim period licences shall be allocated within the \nlimits fixed in Article 1 of the Protocol currently in application \n(reference period 1. 3. 1991 to 29. 2. 1992) subject to fees and advances \nwhich are equivalent pro rata temporis to those fixed in point C of \nAnnex 1 to the Agreement (reference period 1. 3. 1991 to 29. 2. 1992). I should be obliged if you would confirm receipt of this letter and your \nagreement to its contents^\" \n\nI have the honour to confirm that the contents of your latter are \nacceptable to the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and that your letter \nalong with the present constitute an agnfeejent. In aooordance with your \n\nPlease accept, Sir, the assurance of ay highest consideration. For the \n\nof the Kingdom of Morocco \n\n\fFINANCIAL STATEMENT \n\n1. Budget line concerned : B2. 9100 \n\n2. Action : EEC/MOROCCO Fishing Agreement \n\n\u00a3 \n\nDate \n\n3. Legal basis : Protocol annexed to the EEC/Morocco fishing Agreement for the period \n\n1 March to 30 April 1992 \n\n4. Alls : -Financial compensation -fishing opportunities -contribution ) \n\nto Moroccan scientific or technical prograues \n-Grant of study and training awards by the EEC \n\n) for the period 1. 3. 1992 to \n) \n\n30. 4. 1992 \n\nPERIOD OF \n12 MONTHS \n\nCURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR \n(. ) \n\nFOLLOW ING FINANCIAL YEAR \n(. ) \n\n1 March 1992 to \n30 April 1992 \n- 61 days \n\nECU 11 761 362 \n\nYear \n\nYear \n\nYear \n\n5. Financial lip 11cat Ions \n\n5. 0 Expenditure \n\n-charged to the EC budget \n(refunds/Intervent Ions) \n\n-national authorities \n-other \n5. 1 Receipts \n\n-own resources of the EC \n(levies/customs duties) \n\n-national \n\n5. 0. 1 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE \n5. 1. 1 ESTIMATED REVENUE \n\n5. 2 METHOD OF CALCULATION \n\n- financial compensation - annual cost - ECU 68 ill I ion \n\ncost over 2 months - ECU 68 ml 11 Ion : 365 x 61 - ECU 11 364 384 \n\n- contribution to Moroccan scientific or technical programmes - annual cost - ECU 1 500 000 \n\ncost over 2 months - ECU 1 500 000 : 365 x 61 - ECU 250 685 \n\n- study and training awards - annual cost - ECU 875 000 \n\ncost over 2 months - ECU 875 000 : 365 x 61 - ECU 146 233 \n\n6. 0 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT \n\nBUDGET ? \n\n6. 1 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT BUDGET 7 \n\n6. 2 WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY ? \n\n6. 3 WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY ? \n\nComments \n\nYES/J(f \n\nYES/* \n\nfl\u00a3/N0 \n\nNOT APPLICABLE \n\n\f3 \n\nISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 92 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-105-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-42040-5 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bf0b0e4b-8fa4-4102-99e7-b971cb862ef4", "title": "Question No 58 by Mr VERHAGEN (H-0267/92) to the Commission: World Bank plans for industries which cause pollution", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VERHAGEN", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "World Bank,developing countries,industrial pollution,industrial project,technology transfer,transfer of businesses", "workIds": "celex:91992H000267", "eurovoc_concepts": ["World Bank", "developing countries", "industrial pollution", "industrial project", "technology transfer", "transfer of businesses"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bf0b0e4b-8fa4-4102-99e7-b971cb862ef4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7499ce07-b1d1-425f-8659-e8860c303f2b", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 668/92 of 17 March 1992 adapting the conversion rates to be applied in agriculture fixed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1678/85", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "representative rate", "workIds": "celex:31992R0668,oj:JOL_1992_071_R_0021_020", "eurovoc_concepts": ["representative rate"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7499ce07-b1d1-425f-8659-e8860c303f2b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2481b77d-f1c5-4318-bd6c-61314cd5ffaf", "title": "Question No 2 by Mr HABSBURG (H-0278/92) to the Council: Murder of five EC observers by the Yugoslav Federal Army", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,HABSBURG", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "Yugoslavia,armed forces,homicide,penalty,war crime", "workIds": "celex:91992H000278", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Yugoslavia", "armed forces", "homicide", "penalty", "war crime"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2481b77d-f1c5-4318-bd6c-61314cd5ffaf", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/50e9deed-fd47-4cec-8c43-93b4b4741dec", "title": "Question No 55 by Mr NORDMANN (H-0263/92) to the Commission: Austria' s application for EEC membership", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,NORDMANN", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "Austria,EC opinion,accession to the European Union,neutrality,racism,xenophobia", "workIds": "celex:91992H000263", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Austria", "EC opinion", "accession to the European Union", "neutrality", "racism", "xenophobia"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/50e9deed-fd47-4cec-8c43-93b4b4741dec", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d1a8f19f-2451-4b09-9bfb-df660352a457", "title": "User manual for the EUROVOC thesaurus.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print_stpl", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "database,documentary tool,thesaurus", "workIds": "PUB_AX7291665", "eurovoc_concepts": ["database", "documentary tool", "thesaurus"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d1a8f19f-2451-4b09-9bfb-df660352a457", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print_stpl"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bb32be65-f47b-418e-8556-5d2493c9de8d", "title": "Bulletin of the European Communities : supplement. 1/92.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_stpl", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "European Monetary System,Single European Act,action programme", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CMNF92001", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Monetary System", "Single European Act", "action programme"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bb32be65-f47b-418e-8556-5d2493c9de8d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_stpl"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a9ab7f4b-0630-49f4-b6e1-2a92c635fefa", "title": "Commission Directive 92/17/EEC of 17 March 1992 amending Directive 66/403/EEC on the marketing of seed potatoes", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-17", "subjects": "plant health control,potato,seedling,third country", "workIds": "celex:31992L0017", "eurovoc_concepts": ["plant health control", "potato", "seedling", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a9ab7f4b-0630-49f4-b6e1-2a92c635fefa", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9e2982b4-8649-43d4-903b-63034ce9b6d2", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 517/92 by Mr Kenneth STEWART to the Commission. Cancer link with insulation fibre", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,STEWART KENNETH", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EC Directive,European Commission,asbestos,building insulation,building materials,carcinogenic substance,dangerous substance,glass fibre,labelling,public health", "workIds": "celex:91992E000517", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EC Directive", "European Commission", "asbestos", "building insulation", "building materials", "carcinogenic substance", "dangerous substance", "glass fibre", "labelling", "public health"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9e2982b4-8649-43d4-903b-63034ce9b6d2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d1a4a9e9-f902-4ac4-b18f-048de7668b85", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 515/92 by Mr Wilfried TELK\u00c4MPER to the Commission. Compulsory EIAs for authorization procedures started prior to 3 July 1988", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,TELKAEMPER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "administrative procedure,application of EU law,commitment of expenditure,environmental impact,impact study", "workIds": "celex:91992E000515", "eurovoc_concepts": ["administrative procedure", "application of EU law", "commitment of expenditure", "environmental impact", "impact study"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d1a4a9e9-f902-4ac4-b18f-048de7668b85", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/935b6ffd-447b-4eb4-8a20-4c084c8fe7d3", "title": "92/208/EEC: Council Decision of 16 March 1992 on the conclusion of a Protocol on financial and technical cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Jordan,financial cooperation,protocol to an agreement,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:31992D0208", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Jordan", "financial cooperation", "protocol to an agreement", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/935b6ffd-447b-4eb4-8a20-4c084c8fe7d3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/df8fb6ce-d31c-4828-b24e-2b9ab0ce2067", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 541/92 by Claude CHEYSSON , Jean- Pierre COT , Kenneth COATES , Josep PONS GRAU , Christa RANDZIO-PLATH , Jannis SAKELLARIOU , Marijke VAN HEMELDONCK , Henri SABY , Eisso WOLTJER , Klaus H\u00c4NSCH , Michael HINDLEY to the Commission. Financial protocols with the Maghreb and Mashreq countries and Israel and respect for human rights", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CHEYSSON,COATES,COT,European Parliament,HAENSCH,HINDLEY,PONS GRAU,RANDZIO-PLATH,SABY,SAKELLARIOU,VAN HEMELDONCK,WOLTJER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Association Council (EU),European political cooperation,Israel,Maghreb,Mashreq,cooperation agreement,democratisation,financial agreement,human rights", "workIds": "celex:91992E000541", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Association Council (EU)", "European political cooperation", "Israel", "Maghreb", "Mashreq", "cooperation agreement", "democratisation", "financial agreement", "human rights"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/df8fb6ce-d31c-4828-b24e-2b9ab0ce2067", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4527a840-cbb1-41df-931a-3284a1ac623c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 500/92 by Mr V\u00cdctor Manuel ARBELOA MURU to the Commission. Anti-drug programme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ARBELOA MURU,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "European organisation,drug addiction,drug traffic,exchange of information,fight against crime,international cooperation,public opinion", "workIds": "celex:91992E000500", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European organisation", "drug addiction", "drug traffic", "exchange of information", "fight against crime", "international cooperation", "public opinion"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4527a840-cbb1-41df-931a-3284a1ac623c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0120ddae-4358-4282-bd11-94329e9c0392", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 539/92 by Christopher JACKSON to the Commission. Population Unit in the Commission", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,JACKSON CHRISTOPHER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "European Commission,competence of the institution,demography,developing countries,interinstitutional relations", "workIds": "celex:91992E000539", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Commission", "competence of the institution", "demography", "developing countries", "interinstitutional relations"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0120ddae-4358-4282-bd11-94329e9c0392", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/91aa0688-d7c4-47c7-bba7-bafa9ea26885", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 542/92 by Mr Claude CHEYSSON, Mr Kenneth COATES, Mr Jean-Pierre COT, Mr Klaus H\u00c4NSCH, Mr Michael HINDLEY, Mr Josep PONS GRAU, Mrs Christa RANDZIO- PLATH, Mr Jannis SAKELLARIOU, Mrs Marijke VAN HEMELDONCK, Mr Eisso WOLTJER and Mr Henri SABY to the Council. Financial protocols with the Maghreb and Mashreq countries and Israel and respect for human rights", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CHEYSSON,COATES,COT,European Parliament,HAENSCH,HINDLEY,PONS GRAU,RANDZIO-PLATH,SABY,SAKELLARIOU,VAN HEMELDONCK,WOLTJER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Association Council (EU),European political cooperation,Israel,Maghreb,Mashreq,cooperation agreement,democratisation,financial agreement,human rights", "workIds": "celex:91992E000542", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Association Council (EU)", "European political cooperation", "Israel", "Maghreb", "Mashreq", "cooperation agreement", "democratisation", "financial agreement", "human rights"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/91aa0688-d7c4-47c7-bba7-bafa9ea26885", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/68661688-fda6-455a-a81a-bf2ed5783911", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 527/92 by Mr Vincenzo MATTINA to the Commission. Award of public works contracts in Italy", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MATTINA", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EC opinion,Italy,administrative procedure,application of EU law,award of contract,invitation to tender,public works,works contract", "workIds": "celex:91992E000527", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EC opinion", "Italy", "administrative procedure", "application of EU law", "award of contract", "invitation to tender", "public works", "works contract"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/68661688-fda6-455a-a81a-bf2ed5783911", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3bdd4b83-d5c0-4801-87f1-cf3146fdb0b5", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 518/92 by Mrs Carmen D\u00cdEZ de RIVERA ICAZA to the Commission. Via do Infante, Algarve", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DIEZ DE RIVERA ICAZA,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Algarve,EU aid,environmental impact,expressway,protected area,public works,terms for aid", "workIds": "celex:91992E000518", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Algarve", "EU aid", "environmental impact", "expressway", "protected area", "public works", "terms for aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3bdd4b83-d5c0-4801-87f1-cf3146fdb0b5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b6dae937-5d35-441e-afef-af03a880f43c", "title": "92/206/EEC:Council Decision of 16 March 1992 on the conclusion of a Protocol on financial and technical cooperation between the European Economic Community and the People' s Democratic Republic of Algeria", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Algeria,financial cooperation,protocol to an agreement,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:31992D0206", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Algeria", "financial cooperation", "protocol to an agreement", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b6dae937-5d35-441e-afef-af03a880f43c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7a0d4dc5-e49b-4edd-bbcb-372600653d9b", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 513/92 by Mr Wilfried TELK\u00c4MPER to the Commission. Duty of Member State governments or local authorities to implement the EIA Directive", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,TELKAEMPER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "application of EU law,case-law (EU),environmental impact,impact study,local government,regional and local authorities", "workIds": "celex:91992E000513", "eurovoc_concepts": ["application of EU law", "case-law (EU)", "environmental impact", "impact study", "local government", "regional and local authorities"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7a0d4dc5-e49b-4edd-bbcb-372600653d9b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4ecb45a1-62fe-4b3e-9c20-f842bcbe41c8", "title": "92/209/EEC: Council Decision of 16 March 1992 on the conclusion of a Protocol on financial and technical cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Lebanese Republic", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Lebanon,financial cooperation,protocol to an agreement,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:31992D0209", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Lebanon", "financial cooperation", "protocol to an agreement", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4ecb45a1-62fe-4b3e-9c20-f842bcbe41c8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/66590d82-5ae2-49ae-9c15-44751d0dbb11", "title": "92/205/EEC:Council Decision of 16 March 1992 concerning the conclusion of the Framework Agreement for cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "fmx4,html,pdfa1b,print,xhtml", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "European cooperation,Uruguay,agreement (EU),framework agreement", "workIds": "celex:31992D0205", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European cooperation", "Uruguay", "agreement (EU)", "framework agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/66590d82-5ae2-49ae-9c15-44751d0dbb11", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["fmx4", "html", "pdfa1b", "print", "xhtml"], "text": "L_1992094EN. 01000101. xml\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n8. 4. 1992\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\nEN\n\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n\nL 94/1\n\n\n\n\n\nCOUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 March 1992\nconcerning the conclusion of the Framework Agreement for cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay\n(92/205/EEC)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 113 and 235 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission\u00a0(1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament\u00a0(2),\nWhereas, in order to attain its objectives regarding external economic relations, the Community should approve the Framework Agreement for cooperation with the Eastern Republic of Uruguay,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\nThe Framework Agreement for cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay is hereby approved on behalf of the Community. The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision. Article 2\nThe President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 25 of the Agreement\u00a0(3). Article 3\nThe Commission, assisted by representatives of the Member States, shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee set up by Article 21 of the Agreement. Article 4\nThis Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and shall enter into force on the day of publication. Done at Brussels, 16 March 1992. For the Council\n\n\nThe President\n\nJorge BRAGA DE MACEDO\n\n\n\n\n(1)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No C 228, 3. 9. 1991, p. 20. (2)\u00a0\u00a0Opinion delivered on 14 February 1992 (not yet published in the Official Journal). (3)\u00a0\u00a0The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities by the General Secretariat of the Council"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/87a6ffb9-261d-4c45-a4ee-72f721fbe6ba", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 530/92 by Mr Jean-Claude PASTY to the Commission. Proposal for an estimate concerning young male bovine animals weighing 300 kg or less and intended for fattening for the period 1 January to 31 December 1992", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PASTY", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "agricultural surplus,calf,cattle,fattening,import,price support,protective clause,sales aid,supply balance sheet", "workIds": "celex:91992E000530", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural surplus", "calf", "cattle", "fattening", "import", "price support", "protective clause", "sales aid", "supply balance sheet"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/87a6ffb9-261d-4c45-a4ee-72f721fbe6ba", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c04a6d88-2452-4b41-8365-f1caf7631eaf", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 548/92 by Mr Hugh McMAHON to the Commission. North Sea oil as a Community resource", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MCMAHON", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EU production,European Commissioner,North Sea,gas,national sovereignty,petroleum", "workIds": "celex:91992E000548", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU production", "European Commissioner", "North Sea", "gas", "national sovereignty", "petroleum"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c04a6d88-2452-4b41-8365-f1caf7631eaf", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/637704f5-42af-4dcf-86e3-3c071e3a8eee", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 505/92 by the following Members: Luigi VERTEMATI, Nereo LARONI, Pierre CARNITI and Maria MAGNANI NOYA to the Council. Forcible removal of Italian minors Cristian and Daniele to Tunisia by their father without their mother' s consent", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CARNITI,European Parliament,LARONI,MAGNANI NOYA,VERTEMATI", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Tunisia,children's rights,illegal restraint,international convention,mixed marriage,private international law,ratification of an agreement", "workIds": "celex:91992E000505", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Tunisia", "children's rights", "illegal restraint", "international convention", "mixed marriage", "private international law", "ratification of an agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/637704f5-42af-4dcf-86e3-3c071e3a8eee", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d06b66c0-9583-4bc4-8589-2432c0015925", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 519/92 by Mr Ben VISSER to the Commission. Packaging law", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VISSER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EFTA countries,approximation of laws,carriage of goods,environmental protection,exchange of information,free movement of goods,national law,packaging,waste recycling", "workIds": "celex:91992E000519", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EFTA countries", "approximation of laws", "carriage of goods", "environmental protection", "exchange of information", "free movement of goods", "national law", "packaging", "waste recycling"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d06b66c0-9583-4bc4-8589-2432c0015925", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4fd10a14-ff75-440e-ba34-ef6cf1f7628d", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 523/92 by Mr Gerardo FERN\u00c1NDEZ-ALBOR to the Commission. Community policy in respect of youth hostels", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,FERNANDEZ ALBOR", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EU policy,holiday,hotel industry,living conditions,tourism,travel,young person", "workIds": "celex:91992E000523", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU policy", "holiday", "hotel industry", "living conditions", "tourism", "travel", "young person"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4fd10a14-ff75-440e-ba34-ef6cf1f7628d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8eef5a0b-262b-4fe5-a1ae-a14a57808602", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 526/92 by Mr Carlos ROBLES PIQUER to European Political Cooperation. Possibility of using Community diplomatic channels to lodge complaints", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ROBLES PIQUER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "European political cooperation,Panama,Spain,United States,artistic profession,diplomatic relations,joint action,power of initiative", "workIds": "celex:91992E000526", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European political cooperation", "Panama", "Spain", "United States", "artistic profession", "diplomatic relations", "joint action", "power of initiative"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8eef5a0b-262b-4fe5-a1ae-a14a57808602", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/acf3b1f5-4ab3-4b06-8ec8-ba1c8118ac92", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 538/92 by Mr Arie OOSTLANDER to the Commission. The European Schools", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,OOSTLANDER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "European Court of Auditors,European school,activity report,budgetary control,education budget,financial control,financial management", "workIds": "celex:91992E000538", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Court of Auditors", "European school", "activity report", "budgetary control", "education budget", "financial control", "financial management"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/acf3b1f5-4ab3-4b06-8ec8-ba1c8118ac92", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/53a17229-d0d3-407e-a21b-2812a193b1d0", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 528/92 by Mr Mauro CHIABRANDO to the Commission. Independent schools in Italy", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CHIABRANDO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Italy,academic freedom,competence of the Member States,economic discrimination,financing method,freedom to provide services,organisation of teaching,private education,right of establishment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000528", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Italy", "academic freedom", "competence of the Member States", "economic discrimination", "financing method", "freedom to provide services", "organisation of teaching", "private education", "right of establishment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/53a17229-d0d3-407e-a21b-2812a193b1d0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5ac46e0c-e2d8-4212-99bd-071ae0f85dec", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 543/92 by Mr G\u00e9rard CAUDRON, Mr Alman METTEN, Mr Alan DONNELLY, Mr Barry SEAL and Mr Panayotis ROUMELIOTIS to the Commission. Harmonization of taxation of interest on capital", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CAUDRON,DONNELLY,European Parliament,METTEN,ROUMELIOTIS,SEAL", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Germany,interest,ruling,savings,tax avoidance,tax harmonisation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000543", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Germany", "interest", "ruling", "savings", "tax avoidance", "tax harmonisation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5ac46e0c-e2d8-4212-99bd-071ae0f85dec", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/da752a98-4383-4a05-81b0-61631d5b0ac6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 531/92 by Mr Arie OOSTLANDER to the Commission. Book on European history", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,OOSTLANDER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EU aid,history of Europe,school textbook,translation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000531", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "history of Europe", "school textbook", "translation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/da752a98-4383-4a05-81b0-61631d5b0ac6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/733d3f89-d21a-4a89-8beb-a840bef5d3bb", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 667/92 of 16 March 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of specific measures adopted in respect of fruit, vegetables, plants and flowers for the benefit of the French overseas departments", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "French overseas department and region,floriculture,fruit,plant breeding,production aid", "workIds": "celex:31992R0667,oj:JOL_1992_071_R_0013_019", "eurovoc_concepts": ["French overseas department and region", "floriculture", "fruit", "plant breeding", "production aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/733d3f89-d21a-4a89-8beb-a840bef5d3bb", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2beaeab9-df9f-4e64-89dc-8fdcec1911db", "title": "Protocol on financial and technical cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Lebanese Republic", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_international,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_non-member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Economic Community,Lebanon", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Lebanon,financial cooperation,protocol to an agreement,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:21992A0408(05)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Lebanon", "financial cooperation", "protocol to an agreement", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2beaeab9-df9f-4e64-89dc-8fdcec1911db", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e65607ec-995c-45e5-a711-8537df522a9f", "title": "92/192/EEC: Commission Decision of 16 March 1992 amending Decision 91/642/EEC establishing a list of semen-collection centres in Canada approved for the export to the Community of deep-frozen semen of domestic animals of the bovine species", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Canada,animal breeding,cattle,import,veterinary inspection", "workIds": "celex:31992D0192,oj:JOL_1992_087_R_0030_067", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Canada", "animal breeding", "cattle", "import", "veterinary inspection"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e65607ec-995c-45e5-a711-8537df522a9f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6d5de47e-2f47-4ee8-8322-e3841b699c41", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 657/92 of 16 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3743/91 laying down detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements provided for by Council Regulations (EEC) No 3668/91 and (EEC) No 3669/91 in the beef and veal sectors, and Regulation (EEC) No 3744/91 laying down detailed rules for the application of import arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3670/91 for frozen thin skirt of bovine animals", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "beef,buffalo meat,frozen product,tariff quota", "workIds": "celex:31992R0657,oj:JOL_1992_070_R_0014_025", "eurovoc_concepts": ["beef", "buffalo meat", "frozen product", "tariff quota"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6d5de47e-2f47-4ee8-8322-e3841b699c41", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4f149db1-a485-4dfa-9570-c3d1f6265f14", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 550/92 by Pierre BERNARD-REYMOND to the Commission. GATT negotiations on services provided by the legal professions", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BERNARD-REYMOND,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "GATT,framework agreement,legal profession,liberal profession,professional qualifications,provision of services", "workIds": "celex:91992E000550", "eurovoc_concepts": ["GATT", "framework agreement", "legal profession", "liberal profession", "professional qualifications", "provision of services"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4f149db1-a485-4dfa-9570-c3d1f6265f14", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/432e4989-24f1-459f-ad09-f7aee193af1c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 502/92 by Mr Dimitrios NIANIAS to European Political Cooperation. Fears of political deadlock over Cyprus", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,NIANIAS", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Cyprus,European political cooperation,Greece,T\u00fcrkiye,UN Security Council,human rights,military occupation,national independence,settlement of disputes", "workIds": "celex:91992E000502", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Cyprus", "European political cooperation", "Greece", "T\u00fcrkiye", "UN Security Council", "human rights", "military occupation", "national independence", "settlement of disputes"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/432e4989-24f1-459f-ad09-f7aee193af1c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8f1147b9-ccba-4f0e-9811-ff7a4a91beab", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 532/92 by Mr Wilfried TELK\u00c4MPER to the Commission. IEA directive: inclusion of a description of ' social effects' among the information to be provided by developers", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,TELKAEMPER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EC Directive,environmental impact,impact study,interpretation of the law,project evaluation,public health,social life", "workIds": "celex:91992E000532", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EC Directive", "environmental impact", "impact study", "interpretation of the law", "project evaluation", "public health", "social life"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8f1147b9-ccba-4f0e-9811-ff7a4a91beab", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b34e01f1-fcdf-418e-a74e-42057209e67d", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "bus,carriage of passengers,freedom to provide services,international transport,motor car,vehicle registration", "workIds": "celex:31992R0684,oj:JOL_1992_074_R_0001_017", "eurovoc_concepts": ["bus", "carriage of passengers", "freedom to provide services", "international transport", "motor car", "vehicle registration"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b34e01f1-fcdf-418e-a74e-42057209e67d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/21e0f927-18e6-4c69-a4ee-9ae40d50aa28", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 534/92 by Mrs Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Citizens' rights under Community law", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,POLLACK", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EU law,EU national,EU publication,access to information,application of EU law,civil rights,information network,labour law,legal profession,petition", "workIds": "celex:91992E000534", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU law", "EU national", "EU publication", "access to information", "application of EU law", "civil rights", "information network", "labour law", "legal profession", "petition"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/21e0f927-18e6-4c69-a4ee-9ae40d50aa28", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7941e5c4-91ac-4ff4-99e4-84c538129788", "title": "92/210/EEC: Council Decision of 16 March 1992 on the conclusion of the Protocol relating to financial cooperation between the European Economic Community and the State of Israel", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Israel,financial cooperation,protocol to an agreement,ratification of an agreement", "workIds": "celex:31992D0210", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Israel", "financial cooperation", "protocol to an agreement", "ratification of an agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7941e5c4-91ac-4ff4-99e4-84c538129788", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/61ae10e3-0fc5-44b6-bbb3-05c3fde1ae6e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 529/92 by Mr Mauro CHIABRANDO to the Commission. JCR vocational training school in Ispra", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CHIABRANDO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Joint Research Centre,financing method,pupil,research body,research budget,research programme,vocational education", "workIds": "celex:91992E000529", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Joint Research Centre", "financing method", "pupil", "research body", "research budget", "research programme", "vocational education"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/61ae10e3-0fc5-44b6-bbb3-05c3fde1ae6e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f20109b1-47f8-4d2c-b28d-8100993c2e9b", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 524/92 by Mr Gerardo FERN\u00c1NDEZ-ALBOR to European Political Cooperation. Possibility of multiparty democracy in Uganda", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,FERNANDEZ ALBOR", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "European political cooperation,Uganda,democratisation,fundamental rights,multiparty system,national election", "workIds": "celex:91992E000524", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European political cooperation", "Uganda", "democratisation", "fundamental rights", "multiparty system", "national election"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f20109b1-47f8-4d2c-b28d-8100993c2e9b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/47e47bf9-628a-4f5f-b2c4-333d0612fb09", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 547/92 by Mr Ian WHITE to the Commission. Trade in birds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,WHITE", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Senegal,export,international convention,international trade,protected species,protection of animal life", "workIds": "celex:91992E000547", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Senegal", "export", "international convention", "international trade", "protected species", "protection of animal life"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/47e47bf9-628a-4f5f-b2c4-333d0612fb09", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a8565884-dc0b-48c9-b281-d8f47769ace6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 525/92 by Mr John HUME to the Commission. Human rights in Romania", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,HUME", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Community loan,EU aid,OSCE,Romania,democratisation,human rights,politics,protection of minorities,terms for aid", "workIds": "celex:91992E000525", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Community loan", "EU aid", "OSCE", "Romania", "democratisation", "human rights", "politics", "protection of minorities", "terms for aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a8565884-dc0b-48c9-b281-d8f47769ace6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/62d6af7b-e339-4723-899d-f8cef8a195dd", "title": "Protocol on financial and technical cooperation between the European Economic Community and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_international,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_non-member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Algeria,European Economic Community", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Algeria,financial cooperation,protocol to an agreement,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:21992A0408(02)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Algeria", "financial cooperation", "protocol to an agreement", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/62d6af7b-e339-4723-899d-f8cef8a195dd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/90f26540-acb9-4733-9d15-55766b25d78e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 546/92 by Andr\u00e9 SAINJON to the Commission. Doubts concerning the safety of nuclear power stations in Eastern Europe", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SAINJON", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,financial aid,invitation to tender,nuclear power station,nuclear safety,radioactive waste,self-employed person,technical cooperation,waste management", "workIds": "celex:91992E000546", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "financial aid", "invitation to tender", "nuclear power station", "nuclear safety", "radioactive waste", "self-employed person", "technical cooperation", "waste management"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/90f26540-acb9-4733-9d15-55766b25d78e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d306cd51-992f-40b7-b781-9b300ae43d26", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 545/92 by Mrs Maartje van PUTTEN and Mr Alman METTEN to the Commission. Labelling in foreign languages", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,METTEN,VAN PUTTEN", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "consumer information,consumer protection,foodstuff,labelling,marketing", "workIds": "celex:91992E000545", "eurovoc_concepts": ["consumer information", "consumer protection", "foodstuff", "labelling", "marketing"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d306cd51-992f-40b7-b781-9b300ae43d26", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2fa918fe-050c-497a-81a4-79095145fa1a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 522/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 LAFUENTE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. Recovery of used paper and cardboard", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LAFUENTE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "domestic waste,ecological balance,environmental protection,forest conservation,management of resources,natural resources,paper,waste recycling", "workIds": "celex:91992E000522", "eurovoc_concepts": ["domestic waste", "ecological balance", "environmental protection", "forest conservation", "management of resources", "natural resources", "paper", "waste recycling"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2fa918fe-050c-497a-81a4-79095145fa1a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0f3799f9-67b5-4930-83c2-e6036de6b979", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 504/92 by Mr Juan de Dios RAM\u00cdREZ HEREDIA to the Commission. Intercultural education", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RAMIREZ HEREDIA", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EU financing,children's rights,migrant worker,nomadism,schooling,waterway transport", "workIds": "celex:91992E000504", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU financing", "children's rights", "migrant worker", "nomadism", "schooling", "waterway transport"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0f3799f9-67b5-4930-83c2-e6036de6b979", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5017a864-5473-4ca9-bfa8-5cd4855dd881", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 501/92 by Mr V\u00cdctor Manuel ARBELOA MURU to the Council. Anti-drug programme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ARBELOA MURU,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "drug addiction,health control,narcotic,research body,young person", "workIds": "celex:91992E000501", "eurovoc_concepts": ["drug addiction", "health control", "narcotic", "research body", "young person"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5017a864-5473-4ca9-bfa8-5cd4855dd881", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4c5e9f79-fd8d-4d0a-994e-05bbfc4bf411", "title": "Protocol on financial and technical cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Arab Republic of Egypt", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_international,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_non-member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Egypt,European Economic Community", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Egypt,financial cooperation,protocol to an agreement,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:21992A0408(03)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Egypt", "financial cooperation", "protocol to an agreement", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4c5e9f79-fd8d-4d0a-994e-05bbfc4bf411", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0b581555-4d0f-498f-bb47-4c1d97a2c8bc", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 516/92 by Mr Kenneth STEWART to the Commission. Threat to shipping by piracy in South-East Asia", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,STEWART KENNETH", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "South-East Asia,maritime shipping,maritime surveillance,piracy,transport safety", "workIds": "celex:91992E000516", "eurovoc_concepts": ["South-East Asia", "maritime shipping", "maritime surveillance", "piracy", "transport safety"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0b581555-4d0f-498f-bb47-4c1d97a2c8bc", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5e31e47a-90a4-438d-a15e-783c123d90e9", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 510/92 by Mrs Sylviane AINARDI to the Commission. Prohibiting the blending of wines", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "AINARDI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "consumer information,consumer protection,originating product,product quality,production quota,table wine", "workIds": "celex:91992E000510", "eurovoc_concepts": ["consumer information", "consumer protection", "originating product", "product quality", "production quota", "table wine"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5e31e47a-90a4-438d-a15e-783c123d90e9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/97c79e21-aba0-4276-bf2a-49b09319abe5", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 537/92 by Mrs Winifred EWING to European Political Cooperation. Non-voluntary repatriation of Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "EWING,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Hong Kong,UNHCR,Viet Nam,action programme,development aid,humanitarian aid,illegal migration,refugee,repatriation grant,return migration", "workIds": "celex:91992E000537", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Hong Kong", "UNHCR", "Viet Nam", "action programme", "development aid", "humanitarian aid", "illegal migration", "refugee", "repatriation grant", "return migration"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/97c79e21-aba0-4276-bf2a-49b09319abe5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/10a1eca9-8c34-48a4-aa3e-d8a93900031c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 533/92 by Mr Wilfried TELK\u00c4MPER to the Commission. Compulsory environmental impact assessments for changes to projects", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,TELKAEMPER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "engineering structure,environmental impact,impact study,project evaluation,public works", "workIds": "celex:91992E000533", "eurovoc_concepts": ["engineering structure", "environmental impact", "impact study", "project evaluation", "public works"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/10a1eca9-8c34-48a4-aa3e-d8a93900031c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b7226557-1f1f-440a-9802-8b56653e0f22", "title": "Council Directive 92/16/EEC of 16 March 1992 amending Directive 89/299/EEC on the credit institution's own funds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Denmark,credit institution,credit union,mortgage bank,public limited company", "workIds": "celex:31992L0016,oj:JOL_1992_075_R_0048_050", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Denmark", "credit institution", "credit union", "mortgage bank", "public limited company"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b7226557-1f1f-440a-9802-8b56653e0f22", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/39c3c3d3-b373-4b23-a771-9bfa02ce9cd6", "title": "Protocol relating to financial cooperation between the European Economic Community and the State of Israel", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_international,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_non-member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Economic Community,Israel", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Israel,financial aid,financial cooperation,protocol to an agreement", "workIds": "celex:21992A0408(06)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Israel", "financial aid", "financial cooperation", "protocol to an agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/39c3c3d3-b373-4b23-a771-9bfa02ce9cd6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/77929333-cf0b-42ec-9205-4dc9aff97015", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 520/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 LAFUENTE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. Community rules on the right to strike", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LAFUENTE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EU law,European Social Charter,European social policy,collective agreement,joint action,labour dispute,labour law,lockout,right to strike,strike", "workIds": "celex:91992E000520", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU law", "European Social Charter", "European social policy", "collective agreement", "joint action", "labour dispute", "labour law", "lockout", "right to strike", "strike"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/77929333-cf0b-42ec-9205-4dc9aff97015", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/494d3d18-65fb-4786-9b57-50551fc07be9", "title": "92/207/EEC: Council Decision of 16 March 1992 on the conclusion of a Protocol on financial and technical cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Arab Republic of Egypt", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Egypt,financial cooperation,protocol to an agreement,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:31992D0207", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Egypt", "financial cooperation", "protocol to an agreement", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/494d3d18-65fb-4786-9b57-50551fc07be9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1dc6384a-adbe-4607-9b5d-f455785ca2c3", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 508/92 by Mrs Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. AIDS/HIV and insurance practices in Britain", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,JACKSON CAROLINE", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "AIDS,EC Directive,United Kingdom,case-law (EU),equal treatment,freedom to provide services,insurance company,life assurance,protection of privacy,sexual minority", "workIds": "celex:91992E000508", "eurovoc_concepts": ["AIDS", "EC Directive", "United Kingdom", "case-law (EU)", "equal treatment", "freedom to provide services", "insurance company", "life assurance", "protection of privacy", "sexual minority"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1dc6384a-adbe-4607-9b5d-f455785ca2c3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3aed9161-04f9-4604-a765-c8de4f4b3e2e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 511/92 by Hemmo MUNTINGH to the Commission. Illegal bird trapping on Chios", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUNTINGH", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Greece,application of EU law,hunting,hunting regulations,protection of animal life", "workIds": "celex:91992E000511", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "application of EU law", "hunting", "hunting regulations", "protection of animal life"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3aed9161-04f9-4604-a765-c8de4f4b3e2e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ebd74cf4-d3b9-433b-bad7-8f84fbf8fb7d", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3643/85 of 19 December 1985 concerning the import arrangements applicable to certain third countries in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector as from 1986", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Faroes,goat,goatmeat,sheep,sheepmeat,tariff quota", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0087,comnat:COM_1992_0087_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_082_R_0007_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Faroes", "goat", "goatmeat", "sheep", "sheepmeat", "tariff quota"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ebd74cf4-d3b9-433b-bad7-8f84fbf8fb7d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "CCA/MISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMVttJNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 87 final \n\nBrussels, 16 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL RFfj',1' AT I ON fEEO \n\namending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3643/85 of 19 December 1985 \nconcerning the import arrangements applicable to certain third countries \nin the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector as from 1986 \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\nm \n\n\fEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\n^ \n\n1. On 2 December 1991, the Community of the one part and the Government \nof Denmark and the Home Government of the Faroe Islands of the other \npart signed a free trade Agreement which entered into force on \n1 January 1992 \n\nI1). This Agreement provides in particular for the opening of a zero \ntariff quota for 20 t of sheepmeat or goatmeat originating in the \nFaroe Islands. It has also been agreed under the Agreement that the quota will be \napplied as part of the autonomous arrangements provided for in \nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 3643/85. It is therefore proposed to increase by 20 t the limit on the annual \nquantities provided for in that Regulation, on the understanding that \nthis additional quantity will be reserved for the Faroe Islands. 2. The Council is therefore asked to adopt the draft Regulation attached \n\nhereto. (1) OJ No L 371, 31. 12. 1991, p. 1. Proposal for \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No \nof \n\n92 \n\n/92 \n\ns \n\namending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3643/85 of 19 December 1985 \nconcerning the import arrangements applicable to certain third countries \nin the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector as from 1986 \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \nand in particular Article 43 thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament, \n\nWhereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3643/85 of 19 December 1985 \nconcerning the import arrangements applicable to certain third countries \nin the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector as from 1986(*), as last amended by \nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 3939/87(2), lays down the import \narrangements applicable to certain third countries which traditionally \nexport to the Community; \n\nWhereas an Agreement between the Community and the Government of Denmark \nand the Home Government of the Faroe Islands has been approved by \nDecision 91/668/EEC; \n\nWhereas this Agreement provides for the opening of an annual zero tariff \nquota for 20 t of sheepmeat and goatmeat originating in the Faroe \nIslands; \n\nWhereas this Agreement also provides for the said quota to be applied as \npart of the autonomous import arrangements provided for in Council \nRegulation (EEC) No 3643/85; whereas the aforementioned Regulation must \nbe amended accordingly, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\nArticle 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3643/85 is hereby replaced by the \nfollowing: \n\n(1) OJ No L 348, 24. 12. 1985, p. 2. (2) OJ No L 373, 31. 12. 1987, p. 1. - 2 -\n\nV \n\n1. The import levy applicable to the following products shall be limited \nto a maximum of 10% ad valorem, subject to annual quantitative limits \nexpressed in tonnes of carcase equivalent for each third country \nconcerned and by category: \n\nCN Code \n\nDescription \n\n0104 \n\nLive sheep and goats: \n\nThird country \nconcerned & quantity \n\nChile Other third \n\ncountries (a) \n\n0104 10 \n0104 10 90 \n\n- sheep: \n- - other than pure bred breeding \n\nanimals (b) \n\n50 \n\n0104 20 \n0104 20 90 \n\n- goats: \n- - other than pure bred breeding \n\nanimals (b) \n\n0204 \n\nMeet of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled \nor frozen: \n- fresh or chilled \n- frozen \n\n0 \n1 490 \n\n100 \n200(c) \n\n(a) Excluding Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, \nthe Faroe Islands, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, \nUruguay, Croatia, Slovenia and Yugoslavia. (b) The coefficient to be employed for converting net mass (live weight) \ninto carcase mass (carcase weight equivalent) shall be 0. 47 for \nproducts falling within subheadings 0104 10 90 and 0104 20 90 of the \ncombined nomenclature. (c) Of which 100 tonnes shall be reserved for Greenland. For the following products originating in the Faroe Islands, the \nimport levy or, where appropriate, the applicable import duty shall \nbe zero, subject to an annual overall limit of 20 tonnes expressed in \ncarcase weight equivalent: \n\n\f- 3 -\n\n-T \n\nCN Code \n\nDescription \n\n0204 \n\nMeat of sheep or goats, fresh, chilled or \nfrozen \n\n0206 80 99 \n\nEdible offal of sheep or goats, fresh or \nchilled \n\n0206 90 99 \n\nEdible offal of sheep or goats, frozen \n\n0210 90 11 \n\nMeat of sheep or goats, salted, in brine, \ndried or smoked, with bone in \n\n0210 90 19 \n\nMeat of sheep or goats, salted, in brine, \ndried or smoked, boneless \n\n0210 90 60 \n\nEdible offal of sheep or goats, salted, \nin brine, dried or smoked \n\nexl601 \n\nexl602 \n\nSausages and similar products, of meat, \nmeat offal or blood, food preparations based \non these products: \n- of sheep and goats \n\nOther prepared or preserved meat, meat offal \nor blood: \n- of sheep and goats \n\n3. For the products referred to in paragraph 2 falling within the \n\nfollowing CM codes: 0206 80 99 \n0206 90 99 \n0210 90 60 \n\nand notwithstanding the first subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation \n(SEC) No 3013/89, application of paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon. the presentation of an iaport licence issued subject to the conditions \nlaid down in Article 15 of Regulation (EIC) Ho 3Q13/&9. - 4-\n\nG \n\n4. Member States may be authorized to issue import licences for the \n\nproducts referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 up to the limit of the \nquantities corresponding to their traditional imports coming from the \nthird countries concerned. Article 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its \npublication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 January 1992. Done at. For the Council \nThe President \n\n\fFinancial S tatement \n\n1. BUDGET HEADING : ART. 100 \n\nAPPROPRIATIONS : ECU 1 353. 12 m \n\n2. TITLE : \n\nCouncil Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC No 3643/85 of 19 December 1985 concerning the \nimort arrangements applicable to certain third countries in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector as \nfrom 1986 \n\n3. LEGAL BASIS : Article 43 of the Treaty \n\n4. AIMS \n\nThe opening of a zero tariff quota for 20 t of sheepmeat and goatmeat originating in the Faroe \nIslands \n\n5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS \n\nPERIOD OF 12 MONTHS \n\n5. 0 \n\nCURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR \n\n( ECU m ) \n\nFOLLOWING FINANCIAL YEAR \n( ECO m 2 \n\n5. 1 REVENUE \n\n- OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC \n(LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) \n\n5. 0. 1 \n5. 1. 1 ESTIMATED REVENUE \n\n5. 2 METHOD OF CALCULATION \n\n1994 \n\n1995 \n\n1996 \n\n1997 \n\nAs the 10X ad valorem levy is currently suspended for the other third countries in the \nautonomous arrangement and the quantity involved is very small, it can be concluded that there is \nno loss of levy. 6. 0 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET ? \n\n6. 1 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT BUDGET ? \n\n6. 2 WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY ? \n\n6. 3 WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY ? \n\nCOMMENTS : \n\n\f\fISSN 0254-147: \n\nCOM(92) 87 fina \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n11 03 02 \n\nCatalogue number : CB-CO-92-094-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-41809-5 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nLr2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/32d6497f-d4c2-4ceb-868e-d40d88a27add", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 696/92 of 16 March 1992 opening tariff quotas for the importation into that part of Spain included in the customs territory of the Community, of certain fisheries products originating in Ceuta and Melilla (1992)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Ceuta and Melilla,Spain,customs territory (EU),fishery resources,tariff quota", "workIds": "celex:31992R0696,oj:JOL_1992_075_R_0001_026", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Ceuta and Melilla", "Spain", "customs territory (EU)", "fishery resources", "tariff quota"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/32d6497f-d4c2-4ceb-868e-d40d88a27add", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/807b1793-b984-476f-a778-b0da3609159d", "title": "COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 16 March 1992 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1975) (Fourth EDF) for the financial year 1990 (92/171/EEC) #", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#recommendation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Community budget,EDF", "workIds": "celex:31992H0171,oj:JOL_1992_075_R_0053_052", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Community budget", "EDF"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/807b1793-b984-476f-a778-b0da3609159d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/09719e80-7bc9-4ee0-ae99-fd4ce598da83", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 506/92 by Mr Jean-Claude PASTY to the Commission. Extension of winegrowing rules to the manufacture of brandies", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PASTY", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EAGGF,EU production,alcohol,balance sheet,distillation,marketing year,sales aid,spirits", "workIds": "celex:91992E000506", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAGGF", "EU production", "alcohol", "balance sheet", "distillation", "marketing year", "sales aid", "spirits"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/09719e80-7bc9-4ee0-ae99-fd4ce598da83", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7d95d910-7a0e-4fe6-b46f-ae838b0703a9", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 514/92 by Mr Wilfried TELK\u00c4MPER to the Commission. Direct application of the EIA Directive on projects listed in Annex II", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,TELKAEMPER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EC Directive,EU law - national law,application of EU law,environmental impact,impact study", "workIds": "celex:91992E000514", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EC Directive", "EU law - national law", "application of EU law", "environmental impact", "impact study"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7d95d910-7a0e-4fe6-b46f-ae838b0703a9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3542560c-8299-4eca-94fa-29d68c881250", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 652/92 of 16 March 1992 amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 147/91 defining and fixing the tolerance for quantity losses of agricultural products in public intervention storage", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EAGGF Guarantee Section,agricultural product,intervention stock,market intervention", "workIds": "celex:31992R0652,oj:JOL_1992_070_R_0005_020", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAGGF Guarantee Section", "agricultural product", "intervention stock", "market intervention"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3542560c-8299-4eca-94fa-29d68c881250", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/97a37063-230c-4c49-91b7-7d18610c49d3", "title": "92/170/EEC: Council Decision of 16 March 1992 establishing a single Advisory Committee for Eurotecnet and Force and amending Decisions 89/657/EEC and 90/267/EEC", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "fmx4,html,pdfa1b,print,xhtml", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EU programme,advisory committee (EU),continuing education,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:31992D0170,oj:JOL_1992_075_R_0051_051", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU programme", "advisory committee (EU)", "continuing education", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/97a37063-230c-4c49-91b7-7d18610c49d3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["fmx4", "html", "pdfa1b", "print", "xhtml"], "text": "L_1992075EN. 01005101. xml\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n21. 3. 1992\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\nEN\n\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n\nL 75/51\n\n\n\n\n\nCOUNCIL DECISION\nof 16 March 1992\nestablishing a single Advisory Committee for Eurotecnet and Force and amending Decisions 89/657/EEC and 90/267/EEC\n(92/170/EEC)\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 128 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission\u00a0(1),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the European Parliament\u00a0(2),\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee\u00a0(3),\nWhereas, in the interests of greater effectiveness of Community action in the field of vocational training, the activities currently carried out by the Eurotecnet and Force Advisory Committees set up under Article 10 of Decisions 89/657/EEC\u00a0(4) and 90/267/EEC\u00a0(5) should be combined to form a single advisory committee, as announced by the Commission in its memorandum on the rationalization and coordination of vocational training programmes at Community level;\nWhereas Article 10 of Decisions 89/657/EEC and 90/267/EEC should be amended as a result,\nHAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:\nArticle 1\n1. In the implementation of the Eurotecnet and Force programmes, the Commission shall be assisted by an advisory committee composed of two representatives from each Member State and chaired by a representative from the Commission. The members of the committee may be assisted by experts or advisors. 12 representatives of both sides of industry, appointed by the Commission on the basis of proposals from the organizations representing both sides of industry at Community level, shall participate in the work of the committee as observers. 2. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the committee a draft concerning:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nthe general guidelines governing the Eurotecnet and Force programmes;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\nthe general guidelines on the financial assistance to be provided by the Community (amounts, duration and recipients of assistance);\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nquestions relating to the overall balance of the Eurotecnet and Force programmes, including the breakdown between the various activities and dovetailing with other Community programmes and initiatives in the field of vocational training;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(d)\n\n\nquestions relating to the evaluation of the programmes and the dissemination of their findings, with a view to the submission of the reports referred to in Article 11 of Decisions 89/657/EEC and 90/267/EEC. 3. The committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft, within a time limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking a vote. 4. The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member State shall have the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes. 5. The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion delivered by the committee. It shall inform the committee of the manner in which its opinion has been taken into account. Article 2\nArticle 10 of Decision 89/657/EEC is hereby replaced by the following:\n\n\u2018Article 10\nCommittee\nThe Commission shall be assisted in the implementation of this Decision by the advisory committee set up by Article 1 of Decision 92/170/EEC\u00a0(6). Article 3\nArticle 10 of Decision 90/267/EEC is hereby replaced by he following:\n\n\u2018Article 10\nCommittee\nThe Commission shall be assisted in the implementation of this Decision by the advisory committee set up by Article 1 of Decision 92/170/EEC\u00a0(7). Article 4\nThis Decision shall take effect on 1 July 1992. Done at Brussels, 16 March 1992. For the Council\n\n\nThe President\n\nJorge BRAGA DE MACEDO\n\n\n\n\n(1)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No C 24, 31. 1. 1991, p. 6. (2)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No C 240, 12. 7. 1991, p. 240. (3)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No C 120, 20. 3. 1991, p. 23. (4)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 393, 30. 12. 1989, p. 29. (5)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 156, 21. 6. 1990, p. 1. (6)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 75, 21. 3. 1992, p. 51. \u2019\n\n(7)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 75, 21. 3. 1992, p. 51. \u2019"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7f1d0e01-7f80-47f7-a306-63ac74b29ea3", "title": "Protocol on financial and technical cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_international,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_non-member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Economic Community,Jordan", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Jordan,financial cooperation,protocol to an agreement,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:21992A0408(04)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Jordan", "financial cooperation", "protocol to an agreement", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7f1d0e01-7f80-47f7-a306-63ac74b29ea3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a9fd3547-5a7e-4485-bdce-253d31bc0db6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 507/92 by Mrs Caroline JACKSON to the Commission. AIDS/HIV and the proposed Third Life Assurance Directive", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,JACKSON CAROLINE", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "AIDS,EC Directive,United Kingdom,case-law (EU),equal treatment,freedom to provide services,insurance company,life assurance,protection of privacy,sexual minority", "workIds": "celex:91992E000507", "eurovoc_concepts": ["AIDS", "EC Directive", "United Kingdom", "case-law (EU)", "equal treatment", "freedom to provide services", "insurance company", "life assurance", "protection of privacy", "sexual minority"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a9fd3547-5a7e-4485-bdce-253d31bc0db6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cda544b3-40a2-47d6-886f-d29aae2ee2d0", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 659/92 of 16 March 1992 fixing for the 1991/92 marketing year the average world market price and the indicative yield for linseed", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "average price,crop yield,seed flax,world market price", "workIds": "celex:31992R0659,oj:JOL_1992_070_R_0016_027", "eurovoc_concepts": ["average price", "crop yield", "seed flax", "world market price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cda544b3-40a2-47d6-886f-d29aae2ee2d0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6be27cd4-0f5c-4950-ac55-9dd6e737eea2", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) amending Regulations (EEC) Nos 3877/91 and 3878/91 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for certain hand made products and certain handwoven fabrics, pile and chenille", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "tariff quota,textile product", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0089,comnat:COM_1992_0089_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["tariff quota", "textile product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6be27cd4-0f5c-4950-ac55-9dd6e737eea2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 89 final \n\nBrussels, 16 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\namending Regulations (EEC) Nos 3877/91 and 3878/91 \nopening and providing for the administration \nof Community tariff quotas for certain hand made products \nand certain handwoven fabrics, pile and chenille \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\f^ -\n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nRegulations (EEC) Nos 3877/91 and 3878/91 opening and providing for \nthe administration of Community tariff quotas for certain hand made \nproducts and certain handwoven fabrics, pile and chenille renewed \nfor 1992 the tariff measures accorded each year in respect of hand \nmade products originating in certain developing countries. 2. Brazil exports products similar to those from the other countries \n\nlisted in annex to the regulations. Brazilian authorities, it is proposed to include Brazil in the list \nof countries entitled to the tariff quotas. Following a request from the \n\n\f-4-\n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\namending Regulations (EEC) No 3877/91 and 3878/91 opening and providing \nfor the administration of Community tariff quotas for certain hand made \nproducts and certain handwoven fabrics, pile and chenille (1992) \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in \nparticular Article 113 thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nWhereas Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 3877/91 and 3878/911 opened \nCommunity tariff quotas for 1992 in respect of certain hand made \nproducts from a number of countries; whereas the quotas are reserved \nfor products accompanied by a certificate recognized by the competent \nCommunity authorities conforming to one of the models annexed to the \nRegulations; whereas certificates must in addition be issued by \nrecognized authorities in the country of manufacture, certifying that \nthe goods in question are hand made; \n\nWhereas the Brazilian authorities have applied to benefit from these \ntariff measures, whereas they have sent the Commission of the European \nCommunities the name of the authority empowered to endorse the \nnecessary certificates and have indicated their willingness to comply \nwith all obligations under the Regulations; \n\nWhereas it has been established that certain products originating in \nBrazil have characteristics similar to products from other developing \ncountries covered by Regulations (EEC) Nos 3877/91 and 3878/91; \nwhereas the said Regulations should accordingly be amended to cover \nproducts from Brazil as well, \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: \n\nArticle 1 \n\nRegulations (EEC) Nos 3877/91 and 3878/91 are hereby amended as \nfollows: \n\nThe following text is added to the end of Annex III and the end of \nAnnex 11: \n\n\fin the column marked \"country of manufacture\": BrasiI \n\nBrasiIien \nBrasiIien \nBpa\u00a3iAla \nBraziI \nBresiI \nBrasile \nBraziIie \nBrasiI \n\nThe following text is added to the end of Annex III and the end of \nAnnex II in the column marked \"competent authority\": \n\nConselho Nacional de Associacoes \nComerciais - CONASC SCS - Ed. Paldcio do Comercio \nI andar 70318 - Brasilia DF \n\nArticle 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in \nthe Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from 1 April 1992. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly \napplicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \nThe President \n\n\fFINANCIAL STATEMENT \n\n1. Budget heading: Chapter 12, Article 120 \n\n2. Legal basis: Article 113 of the Treaty \n\nName of tariff measures: Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) \namending Regulations (EEC) Nos 3877/91 and 3878/91 opening and \nproviding for the administration of Community tariff quotas for \ncertain hand made products and certain handwoven fabrics, pile and \nchenilie. Aim-, to give Brazil entitlement to certain tariff measures. 5. Method of caleu I at ion/loss of revenue: \n\nThis will not affect measures adopted for 1992, but simply extends \nthe list of countries entitled to the annual tariff quotas (the \nquota volumes remain the same). ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 89 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n02 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-100-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-41863-X \n\nOffice for OiSdal PubUcatioos of the European Communities \n\nL~23S5 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4f4e8eaf-027d-4307-b6bd-21efc5244405", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 521/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 LAFUENTE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. Professional future of customs officials", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LAFUENTE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "European Social Fund,competence of the Member States,customs,job cuts,reintegration into working life,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:91992E000521", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Social Fund", "competence of the Member States", "customs", "job cuts", "reintegration into working life", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4f4e8eaf-027d-4307-b6bd-21efc5244405", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e747bd53-10fc-4bbc-96d5-4f2311fda554", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 658/92 of 16 March 1992 correcting the Danish version of Regulations (EEC) No 778/83, (EEC) No 2213/83, (EEC) No 899/87, (EEC) No 1591/87, (EEC) No 1730/87, (EEC) No 79/88 and (EEC) No 920/89 as regards the provisions concerning marketing in quality standards for certain fresh fruit and vegetables", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "fresh fruit,fresh vegetable,marketing standard,quality standard", "workIds": "celex:31992R0658,oj:JOL_1992_070_R_0015_026", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fresh fruit", "fresh vegetable", "marketing standard", "quality standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e747bd53-10fc-4bbc-96d5-4f2311fda554", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e2699c5f-b341-44af-8ff1-69168947c3ad", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 512/92 by Wilfried TELK\u00c4MPER to the Commission. Council Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Article 8)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,TELKAEMPER", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "competence of the Member States,environmental impact,impact study,interpretation of the law,project evaluation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000512", "eurovoc_concepts": ["competence of the Member States", "environmental impact", "impact study", "interpretation of the law", "project evaluation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e2699c5f-b341-44af-8ff1-69168947c3ad", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4067b4b6-a64c-43c8-b887-7d8f6145ed17", "title": "92/217/EEC: Council Decision of 16 March 1992 on a specific research and technological development programme in the field of human capital and mobility (1990 to 1994)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "industrial development,research and development,research staff,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:31992D0217,oj:JOL_1992_107_R_0001_012", "eurovoc_concepts": ["industrial development", "research and development", "research staff", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4067b4b6-a64c-43c8-b887-7d8f6145ed17", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/28979559-5f04-4ef2-87db-cf9ac45c32fe", "title": "92/178/EEC: Commission Decision of 16 March 1992 amending Decision 87/257/EEC relating to the list of establishments in the United States of America approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "fmx4,html,pdfa1b,print,xhtml", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "United States,fresh meat,health certificate,health control,import,livestock", "workIds": "celex:31992D0178,oj:JOL_1992_081_R_0024_025", "eurovoc_concepts": ["United States", "fresh meat", "health certificate", "health control", "import", "livestock"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/28979559-5f04-4ef2-87db-cf9ac45c32fe", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["fmx4", "html", "pdfa1b", "print", "xhtml"], "text": "L_1992081EN. 01002401. xml\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n26. 3. 1992\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\nEN\n\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n\nL 81/24\n\n\n\n\n\nCOMMISSION DECISION\nof 16 March 1992\namending Decision 87/257/EEC relating to the list of establishments in the United States of America approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community\n(92/178/EEC)\nTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,\nHaving regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products from third countries\u00a0(1), as last amended by Directive 91/688/EEC\u00a0(2), and in particular Articles 4 (1) and 18 (1) thereof,\nWhereas a list of establishments in the United States of America, approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community, was drawn up initially by Commission Decision 87/257/EEC\u00a0(3), as last amended by Council Decision 91/522/EEC\u00a0(4); whereas that list may be amended at any time in the light of the results of Community inspections carried out in the United States of America;\nWhereas, during the latest inspection conducted pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 72/462/EEC and Article 2 (1) of Commission Decision 86/474/EEC of 11 September 1986 on the implementation of the on-the-spot inspections to be carried out in respect of the importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from non-member countries\u00a0(5), some improvements were noted in certain establishments; whereas assurances were presented to the Commission concerning the establishments in question;\nWhereas the measures provided for by this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:\nArticle 1\nThe Annex to Decision 87/257/EEC is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Decision. Article 2\nThe Member States shall authorize imports of fresh meat from the establishment 889 A (JF O'Neill Packing Co. , Omaha, NE). Article 3\nIn relation to the establishments 5736 A (VMI Corporation, Omaha, NE) and 245 L (IBP, Lexington, NE), the Commission may fix the date as of which the Member States shall authorize the imports of fresh meat after having reinspected these establishments and after having informed the Member States in the Standing Veterinary Committee of the results of the inspection. Article 4\nThis Decision is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 16 March 1992. For the Commission\n\nRay MAC SHARRY\n\nMember of the Commission\n\n\n\n\n\n(1)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 302, 31. 12. 1972, p. 28. (2)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 377, 31. 12. 1991, p. 18. (3)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 121, 9. 5. 1987, p. 46. (4)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 283, 11. 10. 1991, p. 14. (5)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 279, 30. 9. 1986, p. 55. ANNEX\n\n\n\u2018ANNEX\nList of establishments in the United States of America approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nApproval No\n\n\nEstablishment/address\n\n\nCategory\u00a0(1)\n\n\n\nSR\n\n\n\n\nSL\n\n\nCP\n\n\nCS\n\n\nB\n\n\nS/G\n\n\nP\n\n\nSP\n\n\n\n\n3 S\n\n\nMontfort Pork Inc. , Marshalltown, IA\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n5, 9\n\n\n\n\n3 W\n\n\nMontfort Pork Inc. , Worthington, MN\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n6, 9\n\n\n\n\n7\n\n\nBerliner & Marx, South Bend, IN\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n2\n\n\n\n\n7 A\n\n\nBerliner & Marx, Edgar, WI\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\nI-30\n\n\nNew Orleans Inspection Service Inc. , New Orleans, LA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n53\n\n\nAmerican Freezer Services, Norfolk, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nE-113-W\n\n\nM & R Packing Co. , Walterboro, SC\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\nI-113\n\n\nUS Cold Storage, Philadelphia, PA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nI-149\n\n\nC W Storage, Albany, NY\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nI-162\n\n\nAmericold, Fogelsville, PA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nI-183\n\n\nBlue Grass Inspection Service, Philadelphia, PA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nI-195\n\n\nRosenberger's Cold Storage Inc. , Hatfield, PA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n244\n\n\nIBP, Storm Lake, IA\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n7, 9\n\n\n\n\n244 C\n\n\nIBP, Council Bluffs, IA\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n5,9\n\n\n\n\n244 M\n\n\nIBP, Madison, NE\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n5, 9\n\n\n\n\n244 P\n\n\nIBP, Perry, IA\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n5, 9\n\n\n\n\n244 W\n\n\nIBP, Waterloo, IA\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n7, 9\n\n\n\n\n245 L\n\n\nIBP, Lexington, NE\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n253\n\n\nLong Prairie Packing Co. Inc. , Long Prairie, MN\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n8\n\n\n\n\nI-305\n\n\nGeorgia Ports Authority, Savannah, GA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nI-320\n\n\nSouth Carolina State Ports Authority, North Charleston, SC\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nI-333\n\n\nDiamond Distribution Center, Newark, DE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nI-335\n\n\nService Cold Storage, Miami, FL\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nI-346\n\n\nPrimliks, Miami, FL\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n382 G\n\n\nSmithfield Packing Co. , Norfolk, VA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n410\n\n\nGreen Bay Dressed Beef Inc. , Green Bay, WI\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n2\n\n\n\n\n511\n\n\nRocco Further Processing, Timberville, VA\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n532\n\n\nNorthern States Beef, Omaha, NE\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n2\n\n\n\n\n562\n\n\nPackerland Packing Co. , Green Bay, WI\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n2\n\n\n\n\nE-646\n\n\nTranscontinent Packing Co. , Palestine, TX\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\nE-713\n\n\nCentral Nebraska Packing Inc. , North Platte, NE\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n1620\n\n\nQuality Pord Processors Ins. , North Platte, NE\n\n\nX\n\n\n\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n6, 9\n\n\n\n\n889 A\n\n\nJ. F. O'Neill Packing Co. , Omaha, NE\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n10\n\n\n\n\n2003\n\n\nCornbelt Meats Inc. , Albert Lea, MN\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n6, 9\n\n\n\n\nE-2018\n\n\nDallas Crown Packing Co. , Kaufman, TX\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n2508\n\n\nThe Bruss Company, Chicago, IL\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n3001\n\n\nCapitol Cold Storage, San Antonio, TX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3056\n\n\nTermicol Inc. , Wallula, WA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3131\n\n\nWorthington Freezer Warehouse Company, Worthington, MN\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1, TF\n\n\n\n\n3136\n\n\nFairmont Refrigerated Service Co. , Fairmont, MN\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1, TF\n\n\n\n\n3149\n\n\nMillard Warehouse (L & B Corp. ), Des Moines, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3150\n\n\nBeatrice Cold Storage Warehouse, Denver, CO\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3157\n\n\nDes Moines Cold Storage Co. Inc. , Des Moines, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3158\n\n\nFreezer Services Inc. , Amarillo, TX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3161\n\n\nMonument Distribution Warehouse Inc. , Indianapolis, IN\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3164\n\n\nAmericold Corporation, Boston, MA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3170\n\n\nLogansport Refrig Services, Logansport, IN\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3190\n\n\nAmerican Freezer Services Inc. , Fremont, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3198\n\n\nMillard Warehouse (L&B Corp. ), Denison, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3215\n\n\nNapoleon Warehouse Inc. , Napoleon, OH\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3216\n\n\nFreezer Services Inc. of Texas, Garden City, KS\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3219\n\n\nMerchants Refrigerating Co. , Denver, CO\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3229\n\n\nIowa Beef Processors Inc. , Emporia, KS\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3241\n\n\nAMC Warehouses, Grand Prairie, TX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3245\n\n\nUnited Refrigerated Services, Marshall, MO\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3256\n\n\nNobel Inc. , Denver, CO\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3261\n\n\nRosenberger's Cold Storage Inc. , Hatfield, PA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3273\n\n\nCentral Nebraska Packing Inc. , North Platte, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3338\n\n\nMillard Warehouse, Iowa City, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3363\n\n\nMillard Warehouse (L&B Corp. ), Friona, TX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3396\n\n\nAmericold, Bettendorf, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3397\n\n\nDFW Cold Storage Inc. , Richardson, TX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3398\n\n\nMillard Warehouse, Grand Island, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3407\n\n\nBell Cold Storage, St Paul, MN\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3431\n\n\nTexas Cold Storage, Fort Worth, TX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3447\n\n\nMohawk Cold Storage Division, Wauwatosa, WI\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3474\n\n\nNordic Warehouses Inc. , Benson, NC\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3475\n\n\nAtlas Warehouse Cold Storage, Green Bay, WI\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3477\n\n\nNorthland Cold Storage, Greenbay, WI\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3490\n\n\nOneida Cold Storage, Salt Lake City, UT\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3505\n\n\nDakota Cold Storage, Huron, SD\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3507\n\n\nZollinger Cold Storage Corp. , Logan, UT\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3512\n\n\nInland Storage Dist Center, Kansas City, KS\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3524\n\n\nTrans Continental Cold Storage, Storm Lake, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3535\n\n\nAshland Cold Storage Co. , Chicago, IL\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3552\n\n\nCloverleaf Cold Storage Co. (No 2), Sioux City, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3554\n\n\nCloverleaf Cold Storage Co. , Sioux City, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3555\n\n\nCloverleaf Cold Storage Co. , Sioux City, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1, TF\n\n\n\n\n3562\n\n\nL & B Corporation, Lincoln, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3573\n\n\nAlbert Lea Freezer Warehouse Co. , Albert Lea, MN\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1, TF\n\n\n\n\n3610\n\n\nMillard Cold Storage, Dodge City, KS\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3688\n\n\nNewport St Paul Cold Storage, Newport, MN\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3707\n\n\nUnited States Cold Storage Inc. , Omaha, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3722\n\n\nDes Moines Cold Storage Co. Inc. , Des Moines, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1, TF\n\n\n\n\n3738\n\n\nArtesian Ice and Cold Storage Co. , St Joseph, MO\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3748\n\n\nCloverleaf Cold Storage Co. , Sioux City, IA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3854\n\n\nMerchants Refrigerating Co. , Vinita Park, MO\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3860\n\n\nCentral Storage and Warehouse Inc. , Eau Claire, WI\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3871\n\n\nYork Cold Storage Co. , York, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3910\n\n\nUnited States Cold Storage, East Peoria, IL\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3935\n\n\nMillard Warehouse, Omaha, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n3942\n\n\nWilkerson Cold Storage, Lubbock, TX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n4215\n\n\nMid America Refr. Serv. , Omaha, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nE-4816\n\n\nGreat Western Meat Co, Morton, TX\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n5736 A\n\n\nVMI Corporation, Omaha, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n4\n\n\n\n\nE-6043\n\n\nFlorence Packing Co. , Stanwood, WA\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n6543\n\n\nSavannah Cold Storage, Savannah, GA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\nE-7041\n\n\nBeltex Corporation, Fort Worth, TX\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n7164\n\n\nCox Packing Co. , Devine, TX\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n7271\n\n\nCustom Meat Corp. , Dallas, TX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n7298\n\n\nMonfort of Colorado Inc. , Harper, KS\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\nE-8861\n\n\nAmfran Packing Co. , Plainfield, CT\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n8904\n\n\nBell Cold Storage, St Paul, MN\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n8984\n\n\nProvimi Veal Corp. , Seymour, WI\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n3\n\n\n\n\n8984-A\n\n\nProvimi Lamb, Seymour, WI\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\nE-9294\n\n\nCavel West Inc. , Redmond, OR\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n9400\n\n\nTaylor Packing Co Inc. , Wyalusing, PA\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n7\n\n\n\n\nE-9910\n\n\nCavalier Export Co. , Evington, VA\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n13182\n\n\nMid-Continent Cold Storage, Omaha, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n13247\n\n\nGold Leaf of Nebraska, York, NE\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n4\n\n\n\n\nE-13439\n\n\nArchway Packing Co. , Desloge, MO\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\nE-15849\n\n\nCavel International, De Kalb, IL\n\n\nX\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n17054\n\n\nRCS/Smithfield Inc. , Smithfield, VA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n17068\n\n\nUS Coldstorage, Cumberton, NC\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n17461\n\n\nMillard Refrigerated Services, Greeley, CO\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n17756\n\n\nMillard Refrigerated Services, Sioux City, LA\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\nX\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n\u00a0\n\n\n1\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(1)\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSL\n\n\n:\n\n\nSlaughterhouse\n\n\n\n\nCP\n\n\n:\n\n\nCutting premises\n\n\n\n\nCS\n\n\n:\n\n\nCold store\n\n\n\n\nB\n\n\n:\n\n\nBovine meat\n\n\n\n\nS/G\n\n\n:\n\n\nSheepmeat/Goatmeat\n\n\n\n\nP\n\n\n:\n\n\nPigmeat\n\n\n\n\nSP\n\n\n:\n\n\nMeat from solipeds\n\n\n\n\nSR\n\n\n:\n\n\nSpecial remarks\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1\n\n\n=\n\n\nOnly storage of meat already finally packaged in approved slaughtering or cutting establishments. 2\n\n\n=\n\n\nOffal only. 3\n\n\n=\n\n\nAlso for sliced bovine livers. 4\n\n\n=\n\n\nOnly sliced bovine livers. 5\n\n\n=\n\n\nTongues and hearts only. 6\n\n\n=\n\n\nTongues, hearts and kidneys only. 7\n\n\n=\n\n\nTongues, hearts, kidneys and livers only. 8\n\n\n=\n\n\nTongues, hearts, kidneys, livers, and brains only. 9\n\n\n=\n\n\nOnly packaged meat which has undergone the freezing treatment provided for in Article 3 of Directive 77/96/EEC. 10\n\n\n=\n\n\nOffal excluded. TF\n\n\n=\n\n\nThe establishments with the indication \u2018TF\u2019 are authorized, within the meaning of Article 4 of Directive 77/96/EEC, to perform the freezing treatment provided for in Article 3 of the same Directive. \u2019"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/df89f8e0-1d7c-42de-96bd-7ab6156bc8db", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 653/92 of 16 March 1992 on the unit of account and the conversion rate to be applied to tenders submitted in response to invitations to tender", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "agri-monetary policy,agricultural product,monetary compensatory amount,representative rate", "workIds": "celex:31992R0653,oj:JOL_1992_070_R_0006_021", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agri-monetary policy", "agricultural product", "monetary compensatory amount", "representative rate"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/df89f8e0-1d7c-42de-96bd-7ab6156bc8db", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0f47b736-29b2-4dcb-ac63-e0b3e6caab47", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 540/92 by Martine LEHIDEUX to the Commission. Aid to the people of Iraq", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LEHIDEUX", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "EU aid,Iraq,UN resolution,aid programme,child protection,food aid,humanitarian aid,international sanctions", "workIds": "celex:91992E000540", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Iraq", "UN resolution", "aid programme", "child protection", "food aid", "humanitarian aid", "international sanctions"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0f47b736-29b2-4dcb-ac63-e0b3e6caab47", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c7255f03-403a-4ce6-9856-8c383c95a556", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 544/92 by Mr G\u00e9rard CAUDRON, Mr Alman METTEN, Mr Alan DONNELLY, Mr Barry SEAL and Mr Panayotis ROUMELIOTIS to the Council. Harmonization of taxation of interest on capital", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CAUDRON,DONNELLY,European Parliament,METTEN,ROUMELIOTIS,SEAL", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Germany,capital movement,free movement of capital,savings,tax,tax harmonisation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000544", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Germany", "capital movement", "free movement of capital", "savings", "tax", "tax harmonisation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c7255f03-403a-4ce6-9856-8c383c95a556", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bb0cb9fb-65d1-45eb-9dde-a2049e666a91", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 536/92 by Mrs Winifred EWING to European Political Cooperation. East Timor -massacre at Dili", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "EWING,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "East Timor,European political cooperation,Indonesia,UNO,committee of inquiry,human rights,international issue,report,repression", "workIds": "celex:91992E000536", "eurovoc_concepts": ["East Timor", "European political cooperation", "Indonesia", "UNO", "committee of inquiry", "human rights", "international issue", "report", "repression"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bb0cb9fb-65d1-45eb-9dde-a2049e666a91", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/34dccc8c-d9b7-4c05-83a9-06816268bb25", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/92 of 16 March 1992 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain thermal paper originating in Japan and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Japan,anti-dumping duty,dumping,facsimile,import,paper", "workIds": "celex:31992R0729,oj:JOL_1992_081_R_0001_013", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Japan", "anti-dumping duty", "dumping", "facsimile", "import", "paper"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/34dccc8c-d9b7-4c05-83a9-06816268bb25", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/550c98e8-07f8-4d82-8a33-34f272fc3b36", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 535/92 by Mrs Anita POLLACK to the Commission. Canadian rainforests", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,POLLACK", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Canada,forest,import,paper,wood for construction", "workIds": "celex:91992E000535", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Canada", "forest", "import", "paper", "wood for construction"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/550c98e8-07f8-4d82-8a33-34f272fc3b36", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/48baff0d-0238-4eba-8623-81801e2a7401", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 509/92 by Mr Barry SEAL to the Commission. Knitwear imports from Hong Kong following the enactment of the Trade Descriptions (Amendment) Ordinance 1991", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SEAL", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Hong Kong,certificate of origin,designation of origin,import,knitted and crocheted goods,marketing,originating product,textile industry", "workIds": "celex:91992E000509", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Hong Kong", "certificate of origin", "designation of origin", "import", "knitted and crocheted goods", "marketing", "originating product", "textile industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/48baff0d-0238-4eba-8623-81801e2a7401", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/48fcb35c-9565-4d25-ae54-5fa0acc635e6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 549/92 by Mr Pierre BERNARD-REYMOND to the Commission. Measures to combat ' caulerpa taxifolia' algae", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BERNARD-REYMOND,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-16", "subjects": "Mediterranean Sea,Mediterranean region (EU),algae,exchange of information,marine pollution,natural disaster,pollution control measures,scientific cooperation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000549", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Mediterranean Sea", "Mediterranean region (EU)", "algae", "exchange of information", "marine pollution", "natural disaster", "pollution control measures", "scientific cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/48fcb35c-9565-4d25-ae54-5fa0acc635e6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/af3c13fc-5ba2-41a4-80ee-d20b7ea7162a", "title": "NOTICE - COMMON POSITION ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COOPERATION PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 149 (2) OF THE EEC TREATY: PROPOSAL FOR A Directive relating to the type-approval of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#position_council,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-14", "subjects": "European standard,advisory committee (EU),approval,approximation of laws,harmonisation of standards,motor vehicle,quality label,technical regulations,technical standard,two-wheeled vehicle,vehicle parts", "workIds": "celex:51992AG0314(01)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European standard", "advisory committee (EU)", "approval", "approximation of laws", "harmonisation of standards", "motor vehicle", "quality label", "technical regulations", "technical standard", "two-wheeled vehicle", "vehicle parts"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/af3c13fc-5ba2-41a4-80ee-d20b7ea7162a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dd8e2fb9-bfcf-499c-b8be-ce748de749d5", "title": "Re-examined proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES OR SIMILAR SPEED LIMITATION SYSTEMS FITTED TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF MOTOR VEHICLE", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "marketing standard,motor vehicle,safety device,speed control", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0088,comnat:COM_1992_0088_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["marketing standard", "motor vehicle", "safety device", "speed control"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dd8e2fb9-bfcf-499c-b8be-ce748de749d5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 88 final - SYN 349 \n\nBrussels, 13 March 1992 \n\nRe-examined proposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DIRECTIVE \n\nON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES \n\nRELATING TO SPEED LIMITATION DEVICES \n\nOR SIMILAR SPEED LIMITATION SYSTEMS \n\nFITTED TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF MOTOR VEHICLE \n\n(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 149. 2(d) \nof the EEC treaty) \n\n\f- 1 -\n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nOn 12 February 1992 the European Parliament adopted, by an absolute majority, \n\namendments to the common position adopted by the Council on 19 December 1991 \n\nrelating to speed limitation devices or similar speed limitation systems \n\nfitted to certain categories of goods and passenger vehicle. Pursuant to Article 149 \u00a7 2 d) of the EEC Treaty, the Commission has \n\nre-examined the proposal and decided to accept these amendments for the \n\nfollowing reasons : \n\nThe Commission accepts the amendment proposed by Parliament on first reading \n\nin the form of a recital on the development of speed limitation devices and \n\nagrees to research into these systems based on the prevailing road and traffic \n\nconditions. In addition, introduction of the advisory committee procedure proposed by the \n\nCommission plays a leading part in the speed and efficiency of the \n\ndecision-making process for adapting to technical progress the Directives on \n\nroad vehicles. Re-examined proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws \n\nof the Member States relating to speed limitation devices or similar speed \n\nlimitation systems fitted to certain categories of motor vehicle \n\nFinal recital: \n\nAfter the sixth recital, insert a new recital reading: \n\n\"Whereas it is reasonable and useful to undertake research activities \n\nrelating to the development of variable speed limitation devices \n\nactivated in conformity with the speed limits warranted by the \n\nprevailing road and traffic conditions within the framework of the \n\nDRIVE programme,\" \n\n\fArticle 3 is replaced by a new Article 3 reading: \n\n- 2 -\n\n\"The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee established under \n\nArticle 12 of Directive 70/156/EEC. The representative of the Commission shall submit to the Committee a \n\ndraft of the measures to be taken. The Committee shall give its \n\nopinion on the draft within a time limit which the chairman may lay \n\ndown according to the urgency of the matter, if necessary by taking a \n\nvote. The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each \n\nMember State shall have the right to ask to have its position recorded \n\nin the minutes. The Commission shall take the utmost account of the opinion given by \n\nthe Committee. It shall inform the Committee of the manner in which \n\nits opinion has been taken into account. \" \n\n\f\f_ 3 -\n\nISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 88 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n07 06 \n\nCatalogue number : CB-CO-92-095-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-41818-4 \n\n)ffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \n-y-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d86f01ff-2a3d-4d24-83f0-61a896ff6f9d", "title": "92/189/EEC: Commission Decision of 13 March 1992 amending Directive 80/879/EEC on health marking of large packagings of fresh poultrymeat", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "health control,packaging,poultrymeat", "workIds": "celex:31992D0189,oj:JOL_1992_087_R_0025_066", "eurovoc_concepts": ["health control", "packaging", "poultrymeat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d86f01ff-2a3d-4d24-83f0-61a896ff6f9d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dcce33cd-b556-42d5-b6ff-8bd3552b6f58", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council decision establishing a trans-European mobility scheme for university studies (TEMPUS)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Culture and Education,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "EU financing,cultural cooperation,education policy,educational exchange,higher education,project evaluation,teaching curriculum", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0069", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU financing", "cultural cooperation", "education policy", "educational exchange", "higher education", "project evaluation", "teaching curriculum"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dcce33cd-b556-42d5-b6ff-8bd3552b6f58", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a8550591-b604-4da3-b0cd-975a1df47b33", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 643/92 of 13 March 1992 setting the indicative yield for hemp seed for the 1991/92 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "aid per hectare,crop yield,hemp,marketing year", "workIds": "celex:31992R0643,oj:JOL_1992_069_R_0026_033", "eurovoc_concepts": ["aid per hectare", "crop yield", "hemp", "marketing year"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a8550591-b604-4da3-b0cd-975a1df47b33", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f46c250a-918f-466d-9f46-5cd9a3d08a9f", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 727/70 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "agricultural quota,common organisation of markets,farm prices,guarantee threshold,reduced price,tobacco", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0100", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural quota", "common organisation of markets", "farm prices", "guarantee threshold", "reduced price", "tobacco"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f46c250a-918f-466d-9f46-5cd9a3d08a9f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e025468e-f372-48f1-a7de-3826db7a5f45", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 646/92 of 13 March 1992 establishing the forecast supply balance and Community aid for the supply to French Guiana of products falling within CN codes 2309 90 31, 2309 90 33, 2309 90 41, 2309 90 43, 2309 90 51 and 2309 90 53 used in feedingstuffs", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "EU aid,Guyana,animal nutrition,marketing year,supply balance sheet", "workIds": "celex:31992R0646,oj:JOL_1992_069_R_0029_036", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Guyana", "animal nutrition", "marketing year", "supply balance sheet"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e025468e-f372-48f1-a7de-3826db7a5f45", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ec190281-bfe7-4cc7-abde-d8d8ec2c075a", "title": "RESOLUTION on the Wi ter Olympic Games", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "Olympic games,environmental protection,impact study", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0058", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Olympic games", "environmental protection", "impact study"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ec190281-bfe7-4cc7-abde-d8d8ec2c075a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4e1178a5-a6ee-4e6a-86df-32ed0b87464c", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 660/92 of 13 March 1992 on the supply of various consignments of cereals as food aid", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "Yemen,cereal flour,cereals,food aid", "workIds": "celex:31992R0660,oj:JOL_1992_070_R_0019_028", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Yemen", "cereal flour", "cereals", "food aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4e1178a5-a6ee-4e6a-86df-32ed0b87464c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/67068295-ffd4-4cf0-beec-150d11b51627", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 641/92 of 13 March 1992 on rules of application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 478/92 for annual Community tariff quotas of dog or cat food and fish food, originating in, and coming from the Faroe Islands", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "Faroes,import levy,pet food,retail selling,tariff quota", "workIds": "celex:31992R0641,oj:JOL_1992_069_R_0023_031", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Faroes", "import levy", "pet food", "retail selling", "tariff quota"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/67068295-ffd4-4cf0-beec-150d11b51627", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ae76fd32-ccc1-463e-9fdd-89a85797616f", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) opening and providing for the administration of a Community tariff quota for prepared or preserved sardines, originating in Morocco, for the period from 1 March to 30 April 1992", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "Morocco,preserved product,sea fish,tariff quota", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0090,comnat:COM_1992_0090_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Morocco", "preserved product", "sea fish", "tariff quota"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ae76fd32-ccc1-463e-9fdd-89a85797616f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nC0M(92) 90 final \n\nBrussels, 13 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\nopening and providing for the administration of a Community \n\ntariff quota for prepared or preserved sardines, \n\noriginating in Morocco, for the period \n\nfrom 1 March to 30 April 1992 \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\nmm \n\n\fEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\n1. Article 4 of Protocol No 1 to the Agreement between the EEC and \n\nMorocco on relations in the sea-fisheries sector states that \n\nprepared or preserved sardines, of CN-codes ex1604 13 10 or ex 1604 \n\n20 50 and originating in Morocco, shall be imported duty-free into \n\nthe Community, within the limits of a Community tariff quota of 17 \n\n500 tonnes (net weight). 2. With this Agreement expiring on 29 February 1992, and in order to \n\navoid interrupting the supply to the Community market, the \n\nCommunity, by Decision. /92, adopted the Agreement in the form of \n\nan exchange of letters on the interim prolongation until 30 April \n\n1992 of the Agreement between the EEC and Morocco on relations in \n\nthe sea-fisheries sector. The provision of this Decision introduce \n\nthe opening of a tariff quota for the period from 1 March to 30 \n\nApril 1992, with the same volume and principles of regular flow as \n\nprovided for under the abovementioned Agreement, while, \n\nnonetheless, deducting the quantities imported duty-free under \n\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) n* 3732/91 of 12 December 1991<1), viz. 4 083 tonnes. 3. Hence, it is proposed that a quota be opened, with a volume of \n\n3 500 tonnes, of which only 2 042 tonnes may be discharged to the \n\nCommunity market before 1 April 1992. Within the limits of this tariff quota, Spain and Portugal shall \n\napply the customs duties which are calculated in accordance with \n\nthe provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3189/88 of 14 \n\nOctober 1988, laying down the arrangements for trade between Spain \n\nand Portugal, on the one hand, and Morocco, on the other. (1) O. J. L 352 of 21. 12. 1991, p. 1 \n\n\f4. It is proposed that the total volume of the products subject to \n\nthis tariff quota should form a Community reserve to which all \n\nMember States will have access according to the procedure laid down \n\nin Article 4 of the proposed Regulation. This is the purpose of the attached proposal. 3 \n\nAnnex-. Proposal for a Regulation. r r o f j o s ai Tor ^ \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No \n\n/9\u00a3 \n\n|i \n\n' \n\nopening, allocating and providing for the administration of a Community tariff \nquota for prepared or preserved sardines, originating in Morocco, for the period \n\nl March \n\nto 30 A p r il \n\n1992 \n\no \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European \nEconomic Community, and in particular Article \nthereof. Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, \n\nWhereas Article 4 of Protocol 1 to the Agreement on \nrelations in the sea fisheries sector between the European \nEconomic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco ('). states that prepared or preserved sardines falling within \nCN codes ex 1604 13 10 or ex 1604 20 50 and originating \nin Morocco shall be imported duty-free into the Commu \nnity within the limits of a Community tariff quota of \n17 500 tonnes (net weight); whereas, in order to ensure a \nregular flow to the Community market under this quota, \nthe quantities destined for that market may not exceed \n\nt he y e a r; whereas at the end of these p e r i o d, the unused q u a n t i t i es \n\n35 % of the totf-l volume of the quota \nof \nof the products in question should automatically be transferred to the \nq u a n t i t i es provided f or the second q u a r t e r; \n\nf i r st q u a r t er \n\nt he \n\nin \n\ndue to expire \nWhereas the said Agreement on fisheries \nat the end of February 1992 and wherezs, pursuant to \nArticle 12 of the Agreement, the Contracting Farrier- have \nbegun negotiations with a view to the possible conclusion \nof a new agreement; \n\nwas \n\nwhereas, pending the conclusion of these negociations, an initial \n\nquota was opened, under Council Regulation (EEC) n\" 3732/91 of 12 \n\nDecember 1991( 2 ), to cover the period from 1 January to 29 February \n\n1992, for a quantity of the abovementioned products which amounts to \n\n4 083 tonnes, calculated \"pro rata temporis\"-, \n\n(') OJ No L 99, 16. 4. 1988, p. 49. (2) O. J. n- L 352 of 21. 12. 1991. p. 1 \n\n\fwhereas, in order to avoid hindering the progres \nwhich are not yet at the final stage and, also, \nsupply of the goods in question to the Community \nby Decision \u2014/92,^adopted the Agreement in the \non the interim prolongation until 30 April 1992 \nEEC and Morocco on relations in the sea-fisherie \nof this Decision introduce the opening of a seco \nthe period from 1 March to 30 April 1992, with t \nthe volume as established by the principles laid \nbut taking account of the quantities covered by \nresult, the quota-volume to be opened amounts to \nwhich only 2 042 tonnes may be discharged to the \n1992. s of the said negociations, \nto avoid interrupting the \nmarket, the Community, \nform of an exchange of letters \n\nP \n\nof th'e Agreement between the \ns sector; that the provisions \nnd Community tariff quota for \nhe principles of regular flow and \n\ndown the abovementioned Agreement, \n\nthe initial quota; whereas, as a \n3 500 tonnes (net weight), of \nCommunity market before 1 April \n\nshall apply \n\nWhereas, within the limits of the tariff quota, Spain and \nPortugal \nthe customs duties calculated \naccording to the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) \nNo 3189/88 of 14 October 19\u00bb8 laying down the arrange \nments to be applied by Spain and Portugal to trade with \nMorocco (2. J; \n\nWhereas equal and continuous access to the quota should \nbe ensured for all Community importers and the rate laid \ndown for the quota should be applied consistently to all \nimports of the products in question into all the Member \nStates until the quota is exhausted ; \n\nWhereas, it is appropriate to take the necessary measures \nto ensure efficient Community administration of this \ntariff quota while offering the Member States the opportu \nnity to draw from the quota volume the necessary quanti \nthis \nimports; whereas \nties corresponding \nmethod of administration \nrequired close cooperation \nbetween the Member States and the Commission ; \n\nto actual \n\nWhereas since the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of \nthe Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg \nare united within and jointly represented by the Benelux \nEconomic Union, any operation concerning the adminis \ntration of the quota may be carried out by any one of its \nmembers, \n\nHAS ADOPTI. !) THIS REGULATION \n\nArticle 1 \n\nFrom l March to 30 Apri I \nthe customs \nduty applicable to imports into the Community of the \nin Morocco, shall be \nfollowing products, originating \nsuspended at the level indicated and within the limits of a \nCommunity tariff quota as shown below : \n\n1992 \n\nJ \n\nOrder No \n\nCN-c<xJe \n\nDescription \n\nV o l n r. j \ntan<\u00bb ci \n(in iu. i'. 09. ?S31 \n\n:, \n\nj ^ 04 ) ) 10 \n\nPrepared or , -,. \u2022;*?,] W i XJ in cs of the iV>eC^r/){l \n\nbil. -hatdus \n\n\"? \n\n';. r|j; \n\nOf \n\n\fWithin the limit of this tariff quota, the Kingdom of \nSpain and the Portuguese Republic shall apply customs \nduties calculated in accordance with Regulation (EEC) \nNo 3189/88. \u00a3 \n\nArticle 2 \n\nThe tariff quota amounts indicated in article 1, which represent \nthe quantities likely to be introduced into the Community market \nuntil 31 March 1992 shall be 2 042 tonnes. Any unused quantities at this date shall be transferred automati \ncally to the volume provided for the month of April 1992. Article \n\nThe tariff quotas referred to in Article 1 shall be managed \nby the Commission, which may take any appropriate \nadministrative measures to ensure that they are managed \nefficiently. A r t i c le \n\nIf an importer presents in a Member State a declaration of \nentry into free circulation including a request for prefe \nrential benefit for a product covered by this Regulation \nand if this declaration is accepted by the customs authori-\nties, the Member State concerned shall draw, from the \ntariff quota, by means of notification to the Commission, \na quantity corresponding to these needs. The requests for drawing, with the indication of the date \nof acceptance of the said declaration, must be com muni \ncated to the Commission without delay. The drawings are granted by the Commission on the basis \nof the date of acceptance of the declaration of entry into \nfree circulation by the customs authorities of the Member \nState concerned, to the extent that the available balance \nso permits. If a Member State does not use the quantities drawn, it \nshall return them as soon as possible to the tariff quota. If the quantities requested are greater than the available \nbalance of the quota, allocation shall be made on a pro \nrata basis with respect to the requests. Member States shall \nbe informed by the Commission of the drawings made. \u2022? \n\nA r t i c le \u00a3 \n\nEach Member State shall ensure that importers of the \nproducts concerned have free access to the quotas for \nsuch time as the residual balance of the quotas so permits. Arttclt \n\n$ \n\nMember States and \nclosely to ensure that this Regulation is complied with. the Commission shall cooperate \n\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on \n\n1 M a r ch 1 9 92 \n\nArticle 4> \n\nThis Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member \nStates. D o ne at Brussels, \n\nFor the Council \n\n\fFINANCIAL RECORD \n\n2 \n\n1. Budget line concerned : Chap. 12 Art. 120 \n\n2. Legal basis : Art. 113 of the Treaty \n\nTitle of the tariff measure concerned : ProposaI for a Counc iI \n\nRegulation (EEC) opening and providing for the administration of a \n\nCommunity tariff quota for prepared or preserved sardines, \n\noriginating in Morocco, for the period from 1 March to 30 April \n\n1992 \n\n4. Oblect ive : To ensure an adequate supply under favourable \n\nconditions for Community user-industries \n\n5. Method of calculation \n\nCCT heading \n\nex 1604 13 10 and ex 1604 20 50 \n\nVolume of the quota \n\n3 500 T \n\nDuty to be applied \n\nNormal CCT duty \n\n0 % \n\n25 % \n\n6. Duty-IOSS : \n\nLoss of revenue for the period 1 March to 30 April 1992 stands at \n\nI 780 625 ECU \n\n(Price 0 : 2 035 ECU/T). In 1991 (for 12 months), the loss stood at 8 316 875 ECU \n\n(Price 0 : 1 901 ECU/T). ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM (92) 90 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 02 \n\nCatalogue number: CB-CO-92-101-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-41872-9 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \ni ^-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fb4e48d3-7c82-459a-82d3-5331c6160074", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 642/92 of 13 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2814/90 laying down detailed rules for the definition of lambs fattened as heavy carcases", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "Greece,Portugal,agricultural guidance,carcase,fattening,sheepmeat", "workIds": "celex:31992R0642,oj:JOL_1992_069_R_0025_032", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "Portugal", "agricultural guidance", "carcase", "fattening", "sheepmeat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fb4e48d3-7c82-459a-82d3-5331c6160074", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fb146292-5e4e-4a3d-b95b-951e1bd7f4b3", "title": "92/190/ECSC: Commission Decision of 13 March 1992 derogating from High Authority recommendation No 1/64 concerning an increase in the protective duty on iron and steel products at the external frontiers of the Community (152th derogation)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "suspension of customs duties,tariff quota", "workIds": "celex:31992D0190,oj:JOL_1992_087_R_0026_047", "eurovoc_concepts": ["suspension of customs duties", "tariff quota"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fb146292-5e4e-4a3d-b95b-951e1bd7f4b3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d5e57e05-f865-4a05-8ae2-d8abbf2fb2c6", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation fixing, for the 1992 harvest, the maximum guaranteed quantities in the raw tobacco sector", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "agricultural quota,common organisation of markets,guarantee threshold,tobacco", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0100(01)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural quota", "common organisation of markets", "guarantee threshold", "tobacco"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d5e57e05-f865-4a05-8ae2-d8abbf2fb2c6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c5fddd0c-dc94-477b-ba5b-eac2a3899df4", "title": "RESOLUTION on the opening of negotiations between the Community and third countries on the rules applicable to carriage of freight and passengers by inland waterways between the parties concerned", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Transport and Tourism,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "EU law,bilateral agreement,carriage of goods,carriage of passengers,inland waterway transport,international negotiations,intra-EU transport,network of navigable waterways,third country", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0075", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU law", "bilateral agreement", "carriage of goods", "carriage of passengers", "inland waterway transport", "international negotiations", "intra-EU transport", "network of navigable waterways", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c5fddd0c-dc94-477b-ba5b-eac2a3899df4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/db550544-8b72-41ab-b3ce-39e37f0806a4", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 645/92 of 13 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 19/82 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 2641/80 with regard to imports of sheepmeat and goatmeat products originating in certain non-member countries", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-13", "subjects": "goatmeat,import licence,sheepmeat,third country", "workIds": "celex:31992R0645,oj:JOL_1992_069_R_0028_035", "eurovoc_concepts": ["goatmeat", "import licence", "sheepmeat", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/db550544-8b72-41ab-b3ce-39e37f0806a4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/13a5c0e7-ef62-4dd1-aca2-d4b1b541b705", "title": "RESOLUTION on the irish abortion case", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Democratic Group,European Parliament,Group for the European United Left,Group of the European People\u2019s Party,Left Unity,Liberal and Democratic Reformist Group,Socialist Group in the European Parliament,The Green Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Ireland,free movement of persons,illegal abortion", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0359", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Ireland", "free movement of persons", "illegal abortion"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/13a5c0e7-ef62-4dd1-aca2-d4b1b541b705", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/12ee2ca2-b378-465d-88ab-554960deb786", "title": "RESOLUTION on the devastation caused by drought in northern Greece", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "EU aid,Greece,drought,water management in agriculture", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0391", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Greece", "drought", "water management in agriculture"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/12ee2ca2-b378-465d-88ab-554960deb786", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5a7a7534-f377-4c63-8f3a-7e1ead769453", "title": "Occupational and qualification structures in the field of environmental protection in the metal and chemical industries in Italy.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Cedefop,European Commission", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Cedefop,Italy,chemical industry,employment structure,environmental protection,mechanical engineering,metallurgical industry,vocational training", "workIds": "PUB_HX7191243", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Cedefop", "Italy", "chemical industry", "employment structure", "environmental protection", "mechanical engineering", "metallurgical industry", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5a7a7534-f377-4c63-8f3a-7e1ead769453", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d0618cdd-072e-4c20-98df-ac04da162ae8", "title": "RESOLUTION on the risks of a disaster in the Baltic and the North Sea", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Group for the European United Left,Group of the European People\u2019s Party,The Green Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Baltic Sea,chemical pollution,marine pollution", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0348", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Baltic Sea", "chemical pollution", "marine pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d0618cdd-072e-4c20-98df-ac04da162ae8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/59e0dd56-7be8-4abd-9ce5-f2fc87fb540e", "title": "RESOLUTION on the murder of vagrants and the sale of their corpses to the medical faculty in Barranquilla, Colombia", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Socialist Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Colombia,human rights,violence", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0338", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Colombia", "human rights", "violence"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/59e0dd56-7be8-4abd-9ce5-f2fc87fb540e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b194320a-56c3-45aa-b3c6-9a86df070e2a", "title": "RESOLUTION on human rights violations in C\u00f4te d' Ivoire", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Group for the European United Left,The Green Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "C\u00f4te d'Ivoire,human rights,repression", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0350", "eurovoc_concepts": ["C\u00f4te d'Ivoire", "human rights", "repression"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b194320a-56c3-45aa-b3c6-9a86df070e2a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a5e82b67-5021-4652-a20d-475fd3a53e93", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION (Cooperation procedure: first reading) embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council Directive on assistance to the Commission and cooperation by the Member States in the scientific examination of questions relating to food", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "EU financing,consumer information,consumer protection,food contamination,food inspection,foodstuff,foodstuffs legislation,human nutrition,public health,scientific committee (EU),scientific cooperation", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0097", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU financing", "consumer information", "consumer protection", "food contamination", "food inspection", "foodstuff", "foodstuffs legislation", "human nutrition", "public health", "scientific committee (EU)", "scientific cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a5e82b67-5021-4652-a20d-475fd3a53e93", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/78890b6c-d54d-47a5-866d-2e44996296bd", "title": "RESOLUTION on the assassination of Mar\u00eda Elena Moyano in Villa El Salvador (Peru)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Group for the European United Left", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Peru,homicide,human rights,violence", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0311", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Peru", "homicide", "human rights", "violence"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/78890b6c-d54d-47a5-866d-2e44996296bd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b55616e2-9fbb-4138-9b99-7945a96586cd", "title": "RESOLUTION on the death penalty", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Foreign Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "UNO,death penalty,human rights,prison system", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0062", "eurovoc_concepts": ["UNO", "death penalty", "human rights", "prison system"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b55616e2-9fbb-4138-9b99-7945a96586cd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5681a561-d159-4172-869d-306b6e4d588f", "title": "RESOLUTION on 1992, indigenous peoples and the quincentenary", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Socialist Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Latin America,United States,human rights,rights of minorities", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0334", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Latin America", "United States", "human rights", "rights of minorities"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5681a561-d159-4172-869d-306b6e4d588f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6323e391-5a5e-482e-9b06-250cc5e6b294", "title": "RESOLUTION on pro ection of the ozone layer", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "environmental protection,ozone,stratospheric pollutant,stratospheric pollution", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0268", "eurovoc_concepts": ["environmental protection", "ozone", "stratospheric pollutant", "stratospheric pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6323e391-5a5e-482e-9b06-250cc5e6b294", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/db0b5eb9-8d18-4d51-964d-a003cd1d7af6", "title": "RESOLUTION on the closure of Parliament' s accounts for the 1991 financial year (administrative expenditure)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#document_budget_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Budgetary Control,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "European Parliament,administration of the Institutions,administrative expenditure,budgetary control,closing of accounts,financial year,implementation of the budget", "workIds": "celex:51992BP0070", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Parliament", "administration of the Institutions", "administrative expenditure", "budgetary control", "closing of accounts", "financial year", "implementation of the budget"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/db0b5eb9-8d18-4d51-964d-a003cd1d7af6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/11a4697d-82b6-4fe7-ac49-3403d1c26f22", "title": "RESOLUTION on urgent medical, technical and food aid to the victims of Chernobyl in Byelarus, the Ukraine and Russia", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Group of the European People\u2019s Party,Left Unity,Liberal and Democratic Reformist Group,Socialist Group in the European Parliament,The Green Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "EU aid,emergency aid,health aid,nuclear accident,nuclear safety,radioactive pollution", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0315", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "emergency aid", "health aid", "nuclear accident", "nuclear safety", "radioactive pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/11a4697d-82b6-4fe7-ac49-3403d1c26f22", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c669f399-b6a8-4c58-b3d6-4edfc5c6c098", "title": "RESOLUTION on the violation of human rights in Iran", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Group of the European People\u2019s Party", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Iran,human rights,right to justice", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0317", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Iran", "human rights", "right to justice"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c669f399-b6a8-4c58-b3d6-4edfc5c6c098", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/62543fef-b7e0-4488-84a9-bb7b6af98995", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal to the Council for a decision concerning the conclusion of an agreement between the European Economic Community, the Kingdom of Norway and the Kingdom of Sweden on civil aviation", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Transport and Tourism,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "EU law,Norway,Sweden,air transport,application of EU law,civil aviation,competition,implementing Regulation,trade agreement", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0056", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU law", "Norway", "Sweden", "air transport", "application of EU law", "civil aviation", "competition", "implementing Regulation", "trade agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/62543fef-b7e0-4488-84a9-bb7b6af98995", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/399324e3-668f-42a8-902f-7c66532e9822", "title": "RESOLUTION on support for demonstrations in favour of democracy and tolerance and against racism and xenophobia", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Socialist Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "racism,xenophobia", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0333", "eurovoc_concepts": ["racism", "xenophobia"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/399324e3-668f-42a8-902f-7c66532e9822", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d522eff2-67f4-4fb9-af1d-3d6d9e1c11a1", "title": "RESOLUTION on heightened tension in Jammu and Kashmir State", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Socialist Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "India,Pakistan,human rights,peacekeeping,violence", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0323", "eurovoc_concepts": ["India", "Pakistan", "human rights", "peacekeeping", "violence"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d522eff2-67f4-4fb9-af1d-3d6d9e1c11a1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/72280e78-14ac-4688-94a9-d38a999d8423", "title": "RESOLUTION on GAT a d the banana trade", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Democratic Group,European Parliament,Group of the European Democratic Alliance,Group of the European People\u2019s Party", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "ACP countries,Community preference,French overseas department and region,GATT,fixing of prices,import (EU),market protection,single market,tropical fruit", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0346", "eurovoc_concepts": ["ACP countries", "Community preference", "French overseas department and region", "GATT", "fixing of prices", "import (EU)", "market protection", "single market", "tropical fruit"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/72280e78-14ac-4688-94a9-d38a999d8423", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ab4e1fbf-978c-4070-8f32-b7e691fbc731", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION (Cooperation procedure: first reading) embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal to the Council for a regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "environmental protection,exchange of information,fourth Lom\u00e9 Convention,import (EU),international convention,intra-EU transport,movement certificate,storage of waste,transit,transport authorisation,transport document,transport of dangerous goods,waste,waste disposal,waste management", "workIds": "celex:51991AP0301", "eurovoc_concepts": ["environmental protection", "exchange of information", "fourth Lom\u00e9 Convention", "import (EU)", "international convention", "intra-EU transport", "movement certificate", "storage of waste", "transit", "transport authorisation", "transport document", "transport of dangerous goods", "waste", "waste disposal", "waste management"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ab4e1fbf-978c-4070-8f32-b7e691fbc731", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d21cf908-e318-4e56-a856-d0816d616631", "title": "Second annual report on the implementation of the reform of the Structural funds 1990.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Cohesion Fund,Community budget,EU Member State,EU financing,EU regional policy,European Social Fund,Structural Funds,activity report,development aid,development policy,economic and social cohesion,fight against unemployment,implementation of the budget,structural expenditure", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_C27291439", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Cohesion Fund", "Community budget", "EU Member State", "EU financing", "EU regional policy", "European Social Fund", "Structural Funds", "activity report", "development aid", "development policy", "economic and social cohesion", "fight against unemployment", "implementation of the budget", "structural expenditure"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d21cf908-e318-4e56-a856-d0816d616631", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/00aa3348-15ae-4e8e-920e-48b3b35a7836", "title": "RESOLUTION on the cholera epidemic in Latin America", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Left Unity", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Latin America,emergency aid,humanitarian aid,infectious disease", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0342", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Latin America", "emergency aid", "humanitarian aid", "infectious disease"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/00aa3348-15ae-4e8e-920e-48b3b35a7836", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0068ffaf-b75a-4468-914b-b1f9fdf4395b", "title": "RESOLUTION on the referendum in South Africa", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Liberal and Democratic Reformist Group", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "South Africa,apartheid,democracy,human rights,referendum", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0354", "eurovoc_concepts": ["South Africa", "apartheid", "democracy", "human rights", "referendum"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0068ffaf-b75a-4468-914b-b1f9fdf4395b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/71d66c0c-4a82-49bd-93e9-4335800f6651", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 627/92 of 12 March 1992 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "milk fat,milk product,tariff nomenclature", "workIds": "celex:31992R0627,oj:JOL_1992_068_R_0009_016", "eurovoc_concepts": ["milk fat", "milk product", "tariff nomenclature"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/71d66c0c-4a82-49bd-93e9-4335800f6651", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8b3955f3-44a7-4a4b-bc44-804d1f5c640a", "title": "RESOLUTION on the situation of the Kurds in Iraq", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Group for the European United Left,Group of the European People\u2019s Party,Liberal and Democratic Reformist Group,Rainbow Group in the European Parliament,Socialist Group in the European Parliament,The Green Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Iran,Iraq,Kurdistan question,T\u00fcrkiye,UN resolution,emergency aid,humanitarian aid", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0301", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Iran", "Iraq", "Kurdistan question", "T\u00fcrkiye", "UN resolution", "emergency aid", "humanitarian aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8b3955f3-44a7-4a4b-bc44-804d1f5c640a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/60a23802-97e9-4abc-9057-7ec91620c983", "title": "RESOLUTION on the situation on the territory of the former Yugoslavia", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Democratic Group,European Parliament,Group for the European United Left,Group of the European Democratic Alliance,Group of the European People\u2019s Party,Liberal and Democratic Reformist Group,Socialist Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Yugoslavia,human rights,multinational force,national independence,peacekeeping,referendum,rights of minorities", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0405", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Yugoslavia", "human rights", "multinational force", "national independence", "peacekeeping", "referendum", "rights of minorities"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/60a23802-97e9-4abc-9057-7ec91620c983", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bae8f0ba-7afa-441a-b5c4-80bcceef3d6c", "title": "RESOLUTION on a common energy policy", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Industry, Research and Energy,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "EU policy,energy policy,energy research,energy supply,environmental protection,international meeting,nuclear safety,price of energy,renewable energy,solar energy,wind energy", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0094", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU policy", "energy policy", "energy research", "energy supply", "environmental protection", "international meeting", "nuclear safety", "price of energy", "renewable energy", "solar energy", "wind energy"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bae8f0ba-7afa-441a-b5c4-80bcceef3d6c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2777cb1e-4ecd-4d97-9e73-d70e2c994d8b", "title": "RESOLUTION on the ecological disaster in part of the Santar\u00e9m district of Portugal", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Left Unity", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Portugal,ecology,environmental risk prevention", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0339", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Portugal", "ecology", "environmental risk prevention"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2777cb1e-4ecd-4d97-9e73-d70e2c994d8b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3327bee6-bfb4-4001-bcac-c3837781629a", "title": "Special report No 2/92 on the audit of export refunds paid to selected major traders in the milk products sector accompanied by the replies of the Commission", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_legislative_other_oj_c,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Court of Auditors", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "EAGGF Guarantee Section,EU control,European Court of Auditors,aid to undertakings,export refund,milk product", "workIds": "celex:31992Y0422(03),oj:JOC_1992_101_R_0001_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAGGF Guarantee Section", "EU control", "European Court of Auditors", "aid to undertakings", "export refund", "milk product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3327bee6-bfb4-4001-bcac-c3837781629a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/63e77318-b277-4f80-99d9-96fb38a69a86", "title": "RESOLUTION on the Turkish mining disaster", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Democratic Group,European Parliament,Group for the European United Left,Group of the European Democratic Alliance,Left Unity,Liberal and Democratic Reformist Group,Socialist Group in the European Parliament,The Green Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "EU aid,T\u00fcrkiye,man-made disaster,mining operation,occupational safety", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0344", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "T\u00fcrkiye", "man-made disaster", "mining operation", "occupational safety"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/63e77318-b277-4f80-99d9-96fb38a69a86", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3344d0fa-c1ae-41ed-bbbe-202dd246a179", "title": "RESOLUTION on the sufferings of abandoned children in Colombia", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Group for the European United Left,Liberal and Democratic Reformist Group,The Green Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-12", "subjects": "Colombia,abandoned child,children's rights,homicide,human rights,torture", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0314", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Colombia", "abandoned child", "children's rights", "homicide", "human rights", "torture"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3344d0fa-c1ae-41ed-bbbe-202dd246a179", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/50e15964-37af-4854-b6e3-8a4ac1871efb", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION (Cooperation procedure: first reading) embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council decision on the adoption of an action plan for the exchange of national officials between Member State administrations who are engaged in the enforcement of Community legislation required to build the single market", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU law,EU law - national law,advisory committee (EU),application of EU law,civil servant,exchange of information,single market", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0088", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU law", "EU law - national law", "advisory committee (EU)", "application of EU law", "civil servant", "exchange of information", "single market"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/50e15964-37af-4854-b6e3-8a4ac1871efb", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d692b456-abfd-4af6-b33b-13717f11b192", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION (Cooperation procedure: first reading) embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of a cooperation agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Sweden on a research and technological development programme in the fields of renewable raw materials: forestry and wood products (including cork) , ' FOREST' and the recycling of waste, ' REWARD' .", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Industry, Research and Energy,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "Sweden,co-financing,cooperation agreement,cork,forestry research,industrial cooperation,industrial research,paper,raw material,recycling technology,research and development,research programme,silviculture,waste recycling,wood product", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0092", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Sweden", "co-financing", "cooperation agreement", "cork", "forestry research", "industrial cooperation", "industrial research", "paper", "raw material", "recycling technology", "research and development", "research programme", "silviculture", "waste recycling", "wood product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d692b456-abfd-4af6-b33b-13717f11b192", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5917609d-b9f9-4c70-8398-e59c4fabb524", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION (Cooperation procedure: first reading) embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council directive relating to the sulphur content of gasoil", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "air quality,approximation of laws,diesel fuel,harmonisation of standards,marketing standard,pollution control measures,product quality,standardisation,sulphur", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0068", "eurovoc_concepts": ["air quality", "approximation of laws", "diesel fuel", "harmonisation of standards", "marketing standard", "pollution control measures", "product quality", "standardisation", "sulphur"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5917609d-b9f9-4c70-8398-e59c4fabb524", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0a700d45-adb0-40b7-8c7e-87e3fe3b38e3", "title": "RESOLUTION on draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 for 1992, Section I -European Parliament Section II - Council Section IV -Court of Justice", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#document_budget_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Budgets,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "Community budget,Council of the European Union,Court of Justice of the European Union,EU aid,European Parliament,administrative expenditure,amending budget,budget appropriation,building,disabled person,draft budget,financial aid,financial year,general budget (EU),hiring,organisation chart,supplementary budget", "workIds": "celex:51992BP0099", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Community budget", "Council of the European Union", "Court of Justice of the European Union", "EU aid", "European Parliament", "administrative expenditure", "amending budget", "budget appropriation", "building", "disabled person", "draft budget", "financial aid", "financial year", "general budget (EU)", "hiring", "organisation chart", "supplementary budget"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0a700d45-adb0-40b7-8c7e-87e3fe3b38e3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8e6d0b49-afee-44ee-9859-243d25434c28", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation setting compensation for reduction of individual milk reference quantities and for definitive discontinuation of milk production", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "butter,dairy production,hard cheese,intervention price,milk,milk product,reform of the CAP,skimmed milk powder,target price", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0079(02)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["butter", "dairy production", "hard cheese", "intervention price", "milk", "milk product", "reform of the CAP", "skimmed milk powder", "target price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8e6d0b49-afee-44ee-9859-243d25434c28", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ff64917d-c6da-44e9-903e-b017e247fc59", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council directive concerning arrangements for the taking into account by enterprises of the losses of their permanent establishments and subsidiaries situated in other Member States", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "agency abroad,approximation of laws,corporation tax,financial loss,parent company,subsidiary,tax on profits of self-employment,tax system", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0020", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agency abroad", "approximation of laws", "corporation tax", "financial loss", "parent company", "subsidiary", "tax on profits of self-employment", "tax system"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ff64917d-c6da-44e9-903e-b017e247fc59", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/76527a35-aa13-4c2b-b8c1-1c5b2d6ddb0a", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3013/89 on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU aid,agricultural production,aid to agriculture,common organisation of markets,goatmeat,sheepmeat", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0085", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "agricultural production", "aid to agriculture", "common organisation of markets", "goatmeat", "sheepmeat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/76527a35-aa13-4c2b-b8c1-1c5b2d6ddb0a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a5549754-dafd-467d-b8e8-37546c672519", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the proposal from the Commission to the Council for a directive concerning the protection of individuals in relation to the processing of personal data (Cooperation procedure: first reading)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Legal Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "European standard,access to information,advisory committee (EU),confidentiality,data collection,data processing,data protection,data transmission,information storage,information user,invoicing,protection of communications,protection of privacy,technical standard,telecommunications,telephone,transmission network", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0010", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European standard", "access to information", "advisory committee (EU)", "confidentiality", "data collection", "data processing", "data protection", "data transmission", "information storage", "information user", "invoicing", "protection of communications", "protection of privacy", "technical standard", "telecommunications", "telephone", "transmission network"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a5549754-dafd-467d-b8e8-37546c672519", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4d64b9e4-ec37-46df-bc87-7629a4f32954", "title": "RESOLUTION on the situation of artists in the European Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Culture and Education,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "artistic profession,cultural policy,occupational status,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:51991IP0389", "eurovoc_concepts": ["artistic profession", "cultural policy", "occupational status", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4d64b9e4-ec37-46df-bc87-7629a4f32954", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8d1a3af9-3bfc-4abb-a5c9-3a204c3e2c11", "title": "Commission Directive 92/15/EEC of 11 March 1992 amending Council Directive 83/229/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to materials and articles made of regenerated cellulose film intended to come into contact with foodstuffs", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "dangerous substance,foodstuff,packaging product,preparation for market", "workIds": "celex:31992L0015,oj:JOL_1992_102_R_0044_046", "eurovoc_concepts": ["dangerous substance", "foodstuff", "packaging product", "preparation for market"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8d1a3af9-3bfc-4abb-a5c9-3a204c3e2c11", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/523505f3-4c6d-409b-9940-45f18c139907", "title": "Directory of Community legislation in force and other acts of the Community institutions. Volume I, Analytical register (as at 1 December 1991) : 18th edition.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Legal service", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU act,EU law,EU policy,EU publication,case-law (EU),directory,legislation", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_FX8691002", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU act", "EU law", "EU policy", "EU publication", "case-law (EU)", "directory", "legislation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/523505f3-4c6d-409b-9940-45f18c139907", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/05f4c7bf-e0b5-44a9-9a69-8fbe5f0a6bfd", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EAGGF Guarantee Section,EU aid,EU financing,agricultural education,agricultural land,agricultural production,aid per hectare,aid system,aid to agriculture,co-financing,environmental protection,land use,physical environment,soil protection", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0086(01)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAGGF Guarantee Section", "EU aid", "EU financing", "agricultural education", "agricultural land", "agricultural production", "aid per hectare", "aid system", "aid to agriculture", "co-financing", "environmental protection", "land use", "physical environment", "soil protection"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/05f4c7bf-e0b5-44a9-9a69-8fbe5f0a6bfd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/933b5dae-a846-4d06-a783-108854f434e9", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation fixing the premiums for leaf tobacco by group of tobacco varieties and the processing quotas allocated by group of varieties and by Member State", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "agricultural guidance,common organisation of markets,production aid,production policy,production quota,sales aid,tobacco", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0078(01)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural guidance", "common organisation of markets", "production aid", "production policy", "production quota", "sales aid", "tobacco"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/933b5dae-a846-4d06-a783-108854f434e9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/be8bd773-536d-470c-9faf-797fd7538c92", "title": "RESOLUTION on draft supplementary and amending budget No. 1 for 1992 -Section III: Commission", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#document_budget_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Budgets,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "Community budget,EU aid,European Commission,Structural Funds,administrative expenditure,amending budget,draft budget,financial aid,financial year,general budget (EU),research policy,research programme,supplementary budget,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:51992BP0098", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Community budget", "EU aid", "European Commission", "Structural Funds", "administrative expenditure", "amending budget", "draft budget", "financial aid", "financial year", "general budget (EU)", "research policy", "research programme", "supplementary budget", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/be8bd773-536d-470c-9faf-797fd7538c92", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b1fb4a95-ab65-4af0-9415-9387d0ffa656", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council decision confirming the consolidation of the EC- Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on External Economic Relations,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "Japan,industrial cooperation", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0072", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Japan", "industrial cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b1fb4a95-ab65-4af0-9415-9387d0ffa656", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1a577bcb-1db2-452e-8a4c-e9bbbbc0b7bc", "title": "RESOLUTION on the c sumer protection and public health requirements to be taken into account in the completion of the internal market", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "application of EU law,approximation of laws,code of conduct,consumer protection,food additive,food hygiene,food inspection,irradiation,producer organisation,restriction on competition,single market", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0060", "eurovoc_concepts": ["application of EU law", "approximation of laws", "code of conduct", "consumer protection", "food additive", "food hygiene", "food inspection", "irradiation", "producer organisation", "restriction on competition", "single market"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1a577bcb-1db2-452e-8a4c-e9bbbbc0b7bc", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/41ab9482-168e-4acc-9b83-d105ef47e784", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3493/90 laying down general rules for the grant of premiums to sheepmeat and goatmeat producers", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU aid,agricultural production,aid to agriculture,goat,reform of the CAP,sheep", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0085(01)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "agricultural production", "aid to agriculture", "goat", "reform of the CAP", "sheep"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/41ab9482-168e-4acc-9b83-d105ef47e784", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b3d9b3e0-ed93-472a-91a6-dde5f00a364f", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 75/129/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "approximation of laws,collective agreement,collective dismissal,labour law,labour relations,work contract,worker consultation,worker information", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0093", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "collective agreement", "collective dismissal", "labour law", "labour relations", "work contract", "worker consultation", "worker information"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b3d9b3e0-ed93-472a-91a6-dde5f00a364f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/42569ffe-5c8a-4274-9108-b0ba62e86cf4", "title": "RESOLUTION on the risk of nuclear proliferation due to the existence of ' nuclear mercenaries'", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_initiative_own_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,Group for the European United Left,Group of the European People\u2019s Party,Left Unity,Liberal and Democratic Reformist Group,The Green Group in the European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "arms trade,brain drain,creation of nuclear-free zones,emigration,engineer,nuclear energy,nuclear non-proliferation,nuclear physics,nuclear technology,nuclear weapon,radioactive materials,scientific profession", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0302", "eurovoc_concepts": ["arms trade", "brain drain", "creation of nuclear-free zones", "emigration", "engineer", "nuclear energy", "nuclear non-proliferation", "nuclear physics", "nuclear technology", "nuclear weapon", "radioactive materials", "scientific profession"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/42569ffe-5c8a-4274-9108-b0ba62e86cf4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d0d4d6f1-0633-4752-8d22-767f959eaa03", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation instituting a Community aid scheme for early retirement from farming", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EAGGF Guarantee Section,EU aid,EU financing,agricultural land,aid to agriculture,allocation of land,cessation of farming,co-financing,early retirement,farmer,farmers' income,land use,transfer of farms", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0086(02)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAGGF Guarantee Section", "EU aid", "EU financing", "agricultural land", "aid to agriculture", "allocation of land", "cessation of farming", "co-financing", "early retirement", "farmer", "farmers' income", "land use", "transfer of farms"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d0d4d6f1-0633-4752-8d22-767f959eaa03", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/38fb6b5a-2a29-436e-891a-5f3751e3eadc", "title": "DECISION (Cooperation procedure: second reading) on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a decision adopting a specific research and technological development programme in the field of measurements and testing (1990-1994)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Industry, Research and Energy,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU financing,materials technology,metrology,research and development,research programme,testing", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0095", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU financing", "materials technology", "metrology", "research and development", "research programme", "testing"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/38fb6b5a-2a29-436e-891a-5f3751e3eadc", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/78f10f0f-3cff-43e8-a411-7a46527a8e73", "title": "DECISION to declare significant the trade and cooperation agreement between the EEC and Albania", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on External Economic Relations,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "Albania,cooperation agreement", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0073", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Albania", "cooperation agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/78f10f0f-3cff-43e8-a411-7a46527a8e73", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9b9a52f0-e4aa-4c50-8774-96c78eb5392f", "title": "DECISION (Cooperation procedure: second reading) on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a directive amending Directive 89/622/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "approximation of laws,consumer information,labelling,tobacco", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0067", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "consumer information", "labelling", "tobacco"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9b9a52f0-e4aa-4c50-8774-96c78eb5392f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1c9c1ad9-64de-4471-a6cb-50dcaf08d2bf", "title": "The development and future of the common agricultural policy.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_stpl", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "beef,cereals,common agricultural policy,market organisation,milk,reform of the CAP,sheepmeat", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CMNF91005", "eurovoc_concepts": ["beef", "cereals", "common agricultural policy", "market organisation", "milk", "reform of the CAP", "sheepmeat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1c9c1ad9-64de-4471-a6cb-50dcaf08d2bf", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_stpl"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/43a5cec4-b98b-4799-87b6-d21c4b3860d7", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council Regulation instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU agriculture committee,EU aid,EU financing,afforestation,agricultural land,aid per hectare,aid system,aid to agriculture,co-financing,environmental protection,land use,physical environment,silviculture,wooded area", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0086", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU agriculture committee", "EU aid", "EU financing", "afforestation", "agricultural land", "aid per hectare", "aid system", "aid to agriculture", "co-financing", "environmental protection", "land use", "physical environment", "silviculture", "wooded area"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/43a5cec4-b98b-4799-87b6-d21c4b3860d7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/50bc89a1-785c-4b87-a16a-014d32c67cb5", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "agricultural levy,agricultural quota,dairy production,milk,milk product,reform of the CAP", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0079(01)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural levy", "agricultural quota", "dairy production", "milk", "milk product", "reform of the CAP"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/50bc89a1-785c-4b87-a16a-014d32c67cb5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0dc20899-3deb-4f4b-9590-1d3f315db152", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "agricultural guidance,common organisation of markets,guarantee threshold,production aid,production policy,production quota,sales aid,tobacco", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0078", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural guidance", "common organisation of markets", "guarantee threshold", "production aid", "production policy", "production quota", "sales aid", "tobacco"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0dc20899-3deb-4f4b-9590-1d3f315db152", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2908c123-7582-4db7-acbc-5b7483ca6942", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation concerning inter-branch organizations and agreements in the tobacco sector", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "agricultural production,application of EU law,common organisation of markets,free service,interprofessional agreement,professional association,tobacco,tobacco industry", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0078(02)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural production", "application of EU law", "common organisation of markets", "free service", "interprofessional agreement", "professional association", "tobacco", "tobacco industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2908c123-7582-4db7-acbc-5b7483ca6942", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3ba0856c-2960-4fc4-8bd6-26e15244ba37", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council directive on the frequency bands to be designated for the coordinated introduction of digital short-range radio (DSRR) in the Community (Cooperation procedure: first reading)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "European standard,communications systems,harmonisation of standards,radio equipment,technical standard,transmission network", "workIds": "celex:51991AP0369", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European standard", "communications systems", "harmonisation of standards", "radio equipment", "technical standard", "transmission network"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3ba0856c-2960-4fc4-8bd6-26e15244ba37", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f45ca579-a5e7-482b-873c-81af68f0173c", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 618/92 of 11 March 1992 on the sale by the procedure laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 2539/84 of boneless beef held by certain intervention agencies and intended for export to certain destinations and amending Regulation (EEC) No 569/88", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "USSR,United Kingdom,boned meat,export,tied sales outlet", "workIds": "celex:31992R0618,oj:JOL_1992_067_R_0029_023", "eurovoc_concepts": ["USSR", "United Kingdom", "boned meat", "export", "tied sales outlet"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f45ca579-a5e7-482b-873c-81af68f0173c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/23557d00-d7f2-466f-a6c5-7f439f772b8c", "title": "DECISION (Cooperation procedure: second reading) on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a directive on efficiency requirements for new, hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous fuels", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "European standard,approval,boiler,energy saving,harmonisation of standards,industrial manufacturing,marketing,producer's liability,product quality,quality control of industrial products,quality label,standardisation,technical standard", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0064", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European standard", "approval", "boiler", "energy saving", "harmonisation of standards", "industrial manufacturing", "marketing", "producer's liability", "product quality", "quality control of industrial products", "quality label", "standardisation", "technical standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/23557d00-d7f2-466f-a6c5-7f439f772b8c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3a03a88d-e8b1-4665-b731-6d19b2134d00", "title": "RESOLUTION on coal a d the internal energy market", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Industry, Research and Energy,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "coal,coal industry,dumping,energy policy,energy supply,environmental protection,industrial restructuring,job preservation,price of energy,tax system,worker consultation", "workIds": "celex:51991IP0333", "eurovoc_concepts": ["coal", "coal industry", "dumping", "energy policy", "energy supply", "environmental protection", "industrial restructuring", "job preservation", "price of energy", "tax system", "worker consultation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3a03a88d-e8b1-4665-b731-6d19b2134d00", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3936f8f0-5b5f-42cc-9165-4b5aebebf686", "title": "RESOLUTION on Community representation in third countries", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_other_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on External Economic Relations,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU control,third country", "workIds": "celex:51992IP0090", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU control", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3936f8f0-5b5f-42cc-9165-4b5aebebf686", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cd33e92e-9b35-4509-81b2-e12c3a4a6be8", "title": "92/316/EEC: Commission Decision of 11 March 1992 concerning aid envisaged by the Netherlands Government in favour of an environmentally-sound disposal of manure (Only the Dutch text is authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "Netherlands,State aid,competition,environmental protection,organic fertiliser,waste disposal", "workIds": "celex:31992D0316,oj:JOL_1992_170_R_0034_040", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Netherlands", "State aid", "competition", "environmental protection", "organic fertiliser", "waste disposal"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cd33e92e-9b35-4509-81b2-e12c3a4a6be8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/689a77ec-d972-47d5-a9a4-db8e31e8365d", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation fixing, for the period between 1 July 1993 and 30 June 1996, the intervention prices for adult bovine animals", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU aid,agricultural production,carcase,cattle,reform of the CAP", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0082", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "agricultural production", "carcase", "cattle", "reform of the CAP"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/689a77ec-d972-47d5-a9a4-db8e31e8365d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/538e3f25-ad04-41ab-a26b-eff1d33e68d5", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 804/68 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "common organisation of markets,dairy production,guaranteed price,milk,milk product,reform of the CAP,target price,threshold price", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0079", "eurovoc_concepts": ["common organisation of markets", "dairy production", "guaranteed price", "milk", "milk product", "reform of the CAP", "target price", "threshold price"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/538e3f25-ad04-41ab-a26b-eff1d33e68d5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/063c1b08-29e9-4197-afe3-63b6e804bbe9", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION (Cooperation procedure: first reading) embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council Regulation Changing Part II of Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU employment policy,EURES,employment service,equal treatment,exchange of information,free movement of workers,job application,job vacancy,labour market,labour mobility", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0084", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU employment policy", "EURES", "employment service", "equal treatment", "exchange of information", "free movement of workers", "job application", "job vacancy", "labour market", "labour mobility"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/063c1b08-29e9-4197-afe3-63b6e804bbe9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/84ca9ead-9b01-4f66-92fa-4ee9ad744715", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation on promoting consumption in the Community and expanding the markets for milk and milk products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "agricultural market,milk,milk product,reform of the CAP,sales promotion", "workIds": "celex:51991AP0079(03)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural market", "milk", "milk product", "reform of the CAP", "sales promotion"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/84ca9ead-9b01-4f66-92fa-4ee9ad744715", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d45bec2a-dc6b-4caa-b856-89f15e23b455", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation on measures to promote market quality beef and veal", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU aid,aid to agriculture,beef,marketing,reform of the CAP,sales promotion", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0082(02)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "aid to agriculture", "beef", "marketing", "reform of the CAP", "sales promotion"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d45bec2a-dc6b-4caa-b856-89f15e23b455", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/79ad8572-5400-4651-8063-0efb3738fa47", "title": "Directory of Community legislation in force and other acts of the Community institutions. Volume I, Analytical register (as at 1 December 1991) : 18th edition.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,pdfx,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Legal service", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU act,EU law,EU policy,EU publication,case-law (EU),directory,legislation", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_FX8691001", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU act", "EU law", "EU policy", "EU publication", "case-law (EU)", "directory", "legislation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/79ad8572-5400-4651-8063-0efb3738fa47", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "pdfx", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9e9ab39f-4f4b-40c3-ae49-9a109fe566d0", "title": "DECISION (Cooperation procedure : second reading) on the common position established by the Council with a view to the adoption of a directive amending Directive 89/336/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "approximation of laws,computer,electric cable,electrical equipment,electro-magnetic equipment,electronic device,harmonisation of standards,standardisation", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0063", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "computer", "electric cable", "electrical equipment", "electro-magnetic equipment", "electronic device", "harmonisation of standards", "standardisation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9e9ab39f-4f4b-40c3-ae49-9a109fe566d0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/87d0293d-c08e-4486-9b97-f1e5cac30f57", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 805/68 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal and repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 468/87 laying down general rules applying to the special premium for beef producers and Regulation (EEC) No. 1357/80 introducing a system of premiums for maintaining suckler cows", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-11", "subjects": "EU aid,agricultural production,aid to agriculture,beef,intervention price,reform of the CAP,suckler cow", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0082(01)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "agricultural production", "aid to agriculture", "beef", "intervention price", "reform of the CAP", "suckler cow"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/87d0293d-c08e-4486-9b97-f1e5cac30f57", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/12061bc8-d5e9-4101-bf07-d4b2b5ef8a43", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 605/92 of 10 March 1992 on harvest, production and stock declarations pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3929/87", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-10", "subjects": "crop yield,harvest,private stock,viticulture", "workIds": "celex:31992R0605,oj:JOL_1992_065_R_0024_020", "eurovoc_concepts": ["crop yield", "harvest", "private stock", "viticulture"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/12061bc8-d5e9-4101-bf07-d4b2b5ef8a43", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/24b51575-b06e-49d4-b64d-c0311da34359", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the amended Commission proposal for a Council directive on the approximation of taxes on manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-10", "subjects": "basis of tax assessment,excise duty,fiscal policy,indirect tax,tax harmonisation,tax law,tax system,tobacco", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0051", "eurovoc_concepts": ["basis of tax assessment", "excise duty", "fiscal policy", "indirect tax", "tax harmonisation", "tax law", "tax system", "tobacco"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/24b51575-b06e-49d4-b64d-c0311da34359", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4781a683-13c5-4b38-a82c-e8cf7c72b0ee", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the amended proposal from the Commission for a Council directive on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-10", "subjects": "basis of tax assessment,excise duty,fiscal policy,indirect tax,tax harmonisation,tax law,tax system,tobacco industry", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0014", "eurovoc_concepts": ["basis of tax assessment", "excise duty", "fiscal policy", "indirect tax", "tax harmonisation", "tax law", "tax system", "tobacco industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4781a683-13c5-4b38-a82c-e8cf7c72b0ee", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/050940bc-acb3-4a24-9f4a-f867ceb75df7", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 615/92 of 10 March 1992 laying down detailed rules for a support system for producers of soya beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-10", "subjects": "oleaginous plant,production aid,regional aid,utilised agricultural area", "workIds": "celex:31992R0615,oj:JOL_1992_067_R_0011_020", "eurovoc_concepts": ["oleaginous plant", "production aid", "regional aid", "utilised agricultural area"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/050940bc-acb3-4a24-9f4a-f867ceb75df7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/90fe79b9-47a9-40de-8e48-448751349c73", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the amended proposal from the Commission to the Council for a directive on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcoholic beverages and the alcohol contained in other products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-10", "subjects": "alcohol,alcoholic beverage,basis of tax assessment,beer,excise duty,fiscal policy,sparkling wine,still wine,tax harmonisation,tax law,tax system,wine", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0096", "eurovoc_concepts": ["alcohol", "alcoholic beverage", "basis of tax assessment", "beer", "excise duty", "fiscal policy", "sparkling wine", "still wine", "tax harmonisation", "tax law", "tax system", "wine"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/90fe79b9-47a9-40de-8e48-448751349c73", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4ce8b891-05bb-4788-9c11-ad58dd745eb8", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 606/92 of 10 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1570/77 on price increases and reductions applicable to intervention in cereals", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-10", "subjects": "intervention price,price increase,price reduction", "workIds": "celex:31992R0606,oj:JOL_1992_065_R_0025_021", "eurovoc_concepts": ["intervention price", "price increase", "price reduction"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4ce8b891-05bb-4788-9c11-ad58dd745eb8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c36f28a6-6939-4fbf-bad8-4c47e5175183", "title": "92/188/EEC: Commission Decision of 10 March 1992 concerning certain protection measures relating to the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-10", "subjects": "animal disease,intra-EU trade,swine,veterinary inspection", "workIds": "celex:31992D0188,oj:JOL_1992_087_R_0022_065", "eurovoc_concepts": ["animal disease", "intra-EU trade", "swine", "veterinary inspection"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c36f28a6-6939-4fbf-bad8-4c47e5175183", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2ba6073c-f6f1-4216-b82c-328415069307", "title": "LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the Commission proposal for a Council directive amending Directives 72/464/EEC and 79/32/ EEC on taxes other than turnover taxes which are levied on the consumption of manufactured tobacco", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resolution_legislative_ep,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-10", "subjects": "excise duty,indirect tax,tax harmonisation,tobacco,tobacco industry", "workIds": "celex:51992AP0013", "eurovoc_concepts": ["excise duty", "indirect tax", "tax harmonisation", "tobacco", "tobacco industry"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2ba6073c-f6f1-4216-b82c-328415069307", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6e42871a-623d-4d16-8af9-f10a2554add1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 469/92 by Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. Slaughter of dairy cattle in Spain", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "EU aid,Spain,agricultural quota,conversion to beef production,dairy cow,dairy production,indemnification,redevelopment aid,redirection of production,slaughter of animals", "workIds": "celex:91992E000469", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Spain", "agricultural quota", "conversion to beef production", "dairy cow", "dairy production", "indemnification", "redevelopment aid", "redirection of production", "slaughter of animals"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6e42871a-623d-4d16-8af9-f10a2554add1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0e395e6b-a621-4682-856c-d206509f2447", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 456/92 by Mr Fran\u00e7ois MUSSO to the Commission. Directive on wild birds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSSO", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Council of the European Union,EC Directive,France,application of EU law,protected species,protection of animal life,report,wildlife", "workIds": "celex:91992E000456", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Council of the European Union", "EC Directive", "France", "application of EU law", "protected species", "protection of animal life", "report", "wildlife"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0e395e6b-a621-4682-856c-d206509f2447", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/943362d3-da42-4f61-a434-6ecff7e88d11", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 488/92 by S\u00e9rgio RIBEIRO to the Commission. Protection of highly endangered species", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RIBEIRO", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Central Portugal,EU financing,co-financing,protected species,protection of animal life,protection of plant life,water management in agriculture,wildlife", "workIds": "celex:91992E000488", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central Portugal", "EU financing", "co-financing", "protected species", "protection of animal life", "protection of plant life", "water management in agriculture", "wildlife"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/943362d3-da42-4f61-a434-6ecff7e88d11", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ce335f95-432e-4c2c-ad52-7b0663255337", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 491/92 by Mr Giuseppe MOTTOLA to the Commission. Fish markets in the Campania region -Anisakis virus -creation of marine park", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MOTTOLA", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "coastal pollution,common fisheries policy,decontamination,environmental protection,fishery resources,food contamination,organic pollution,protected area,public health,sea fish", "workIds": "celex:91992E000491", "eurovoc_concepts": ["coastal pollution", "common fisheries policy", "decontamination", "environmental protection", "fishery resources", "food contamination", "organic pollution", "protected area", "public health", "sea fish"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ce335f95-432e-4c2c-ad52-7b0663255337", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/753fdb71-8cc4-42c7-979f-5c7d71e1b1f1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 453/92 by Mr Fran\u00e7ois MUSSO to the Commission. Directive on wild birds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSSO", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Council of the European Union,EC Directive,application of EU law,protected species,protection of animal life,report,wildlife", "workIds": "celex:91992E000453", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Council of the European Union", "EC Directive", "application of EU law", "protected species", "protection of animal life", "report", "wildlife"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/753fdb71-8cc4-42c7-979f-5c7d71e1b1f1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5dcb520a-9f67-45bf-ba44-bc947ecd61d1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 473/92 by Mrs Imelda READ to the Commission. Food imports", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,READ", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,USSR,animal product,database,foodstuff,frontier,health control,import,veterinary inspection", "workIds": "celex:91992E000473", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "USSR", "animal product", "database", "foodstuff", "frontier", "health control", "import", "veterinary inspection"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5dcb520a-9f67-45bf-ba44-bc947ecd61d1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ebacd851-9dbb-4987-85a1-3440b6df2233", "title": "Question No 56 by Mr GANGOITI LLAGUNO (H-0241/92) to the Commission: State of progress of and prospects for the GATT negotiations", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,GANGOITI LLAGUNO", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "GATT,common agricultural policy,tariff negotiations", "workIds": "celex:91992H000241", "eurovoc_concepts": ["GATT", "common agricultural policy", "tariff negotiations"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ebacd851-9dbb-4987-85a1-3440b6df2233", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/38dace36-72fd-4db0-875a-fc36c3980483", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 476/92 by Mr Alexander LANGER to the Commission. Irregularities concerning a major waterworks project in Campania (Italy)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LANGER", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Campania,archaeology,competence of the Member States,cultural heritage,groundwater,heritage protection,public works,water supply", "workIds": "celex:91992E000476", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Campania", "archaeology", "competence of the Member States", "cultural heritage", "groundwater", "heritage protection", "public works", "water supply"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/38dace36-72fd-4db0-875a-fc36c3980483", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1b5d5fc8-aee8-497b-a32d-cea8c079f573", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 492/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Council. Violation of human rights in Albania", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Albania,Greece,OSCE,formation of a party,human rights,national minority,parliamentary election,political rights", "workIds": "celex:91992E000492", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Albania", "Greece", "OSCE", "formation of a party", "human rights", "national minority", "parliamentary election", "political rights"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1b5d5fc8-aee8-497b-a32d-cea8c079f573", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dc27807c-4c00-4d55-a48b-b9f2e466a959", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 484/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Council. Extradition of the war criminal Alois Brunner", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "European political cooperation,Germany,Macedonia,Syria,antisemitism,deportee,extradition,war crime", "workIds": "celex:91992E000484", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European political cooperation", "Germany", "Macedonia", "Syria", "antisemitism", "deportee", "extradition", "war crime"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dc27807c-4c00-4d55-a48b-b9f2e466a959", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e2b82956-5e8a-4b0e-b4f2-0e8e9a6eb071", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 468/92 by Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. Dairy production in Spain", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "EU aid,Spain,agricultural quota,dairy production,indemnification,redevelopment aid,redirection of production", "workIds": "celex:91992E000468", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Spain", "agricultural quota", "dairy production", "indemnification", "redevelopment aid", "redirection of production"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e2b82956-5e8a-4b0e-b4f2-0e8e9a6eb071", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9018443c-180b-471d-9637-9662ca732240", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 466/92 by Mr Kenneth COLLINS to the Commission. Action by individual Member States in the field of environment policy", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "COLLINS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Germany,application of EU law,environmental protection,foodstuff,harmonisation of standards,packaging,technical standard", "workIds": "celex:91992E000466", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Germany", "application of EU law", "environmental protection", "foodstuff", "harmonisation of standards", "packaging", "technical standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9018443c-180b-471d-9637-9662ca732240", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/041cd71b-90b3-494b-9482-84ce463644b7", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 496/92 by Mr V\u00cdctor Manuel ARBELOA MURU to European Political Cooperation. Response of Morocco in respect of human rights", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ARBELOA MURU,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "European political cooperation,Morocco,human rights,political prisoner,prison system", "workIds": "celex:91992E000496", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European political cooperation", "Morocco", "human rights", "political prisoner", "prison system"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/041cd71b-90b3-494b-9482-84ce463644b7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/487a39b9-1683-4f3a-9839-7fdda388d3fd", "title": "92/169/EEC: Commission Decision of 9 March 1992 suspending the examination procedure concerning illicit commercial practices within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84 consisting of the imposition in Japan of a port charge or fee used for the creation of a Harbour Management Fund", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Japan,harbour installation,restriction on competition,transit charge", "workIds": "celex:31992D0169,oj:JOL_1992_074_R_0047_034", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Japan", "harbour installation", "restriction on competition", "transit charge"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/487a39b9-1683-4f3a-9839-7fdda388d3fd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/08d56d07-0883-4427-95c3-28ac9373e7ce", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 463/92 by Mr Christopher JACKSON to the Commission. Wealth tax levied on non-residents in Spain", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,JACKSON CHRISTOPHER", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Spain,competence of the Member States,economic discrimination,legal domicile,real property,secondary residence,tax relief,wealth tax", "workIds": "celex:91992E000463", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Spain", "competence of the Member States", "economic discrimination", "legal domicile", "real property", "secondary residence", "tax relief", "wealth tax"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/08d56d07-0883-4427-95c3-28ac9373e7ce", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c8181c97-c9b9-4d11-b5a4-233737d4af0e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 475/92 by Mr S\u00e9rgio RIBEIRO to the Commission. Reception of the Indonesian MNE by the Commission", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RIBEIRO", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Indonesia,Timor,arms trade,cooperation agreement,diplomatic representation,human rights,international sanctions,judicial inquiry,repression,war crime", "workIds": "celex:91992E000475", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Indonesia", "Timor", "arms trade", "cooperation agreement", "diplomatic representation", "human rights", "international sanctions", "judicial inquiry", "repression", "war crime"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c8181c97-c9b9-4d11-b5a4-233737d4af0e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ba59e408-6287-4c79-b670-066e18b30958", "title": "Radioactive waste package assay facility : application of assay technology. Volume I, Characterization of radioactive waste forms : a series of final reports (1985-89/ No 40).", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "radioactive waste,research report", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CDNA13870", "eurovoc_concepts": ["radioactive waste", "research report"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ba59e408-6287-4c79-b670-066e18b30958", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/61d078f0-d6b6-4dd4-889a-414e1e012417", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 483/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Council. Legal action against citizens for refusing to vote", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Greece,application of the law,competence of the Member States,compulsory voting,parliamentary election", "workIds": "celex:91992E000483", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "application of the law", "competence of the Member States", "compulsory voting", "parliamentary election"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/61d078f0-d6b6-4dd4-889a-414e1e012417", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8b8168a4-111a-4f2f-b26d-817e3e77c1aa", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 481/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Poisoned pellets in natural habitats", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Epirus,game animal,hunting,physical environment,protected species,toxic substance,wildlife", "workIds": "celex:91992E000481", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Epirus", "game animal", "hunting", "physical environment", "protected species", "toxic substance", "wildlife"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8b8168a4-111a-4f2f-b26d-817e3e77c1aa", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/09a89c8d-03f3-4324-9445-3bd2267a46bc", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 452/92 by Mr Fran\u00e7ois MUSSO to the Commission. Directive on wild birds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSSO", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Council of the European Union,EC Directive,protected species,protection of animal life,wildlife", "workIds": "celex:91992E000452", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Council of the European Union", "EC Directive", "protected species", "protection of animal life", "wildlife"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/09a89c8d-03f3-4324-9445-3bd2267a46bc", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/791b24a3-8941-41a7-8902-3e6fdc0ecc86", "title": "Public services : Working for the consumer.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Eurofound", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "civil servant,consumer behaviour,public service,public service employee,working conditions", "workIds": "PUB_SY5890950", "eurovoc_concepts": ["civil servant", "consumer behaviour", "public service", "public service employee", "working conditions"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/791b24a3-8941-41a7-8902-3e6fdc0ecc86", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f5e7d110-91f1-4269-926a-371ac80942e7", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 495/92 by Mr V\u00cdctor Manuel ARBELOA MURU to the Council. Recovery of works of art", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ARBELOA MURU,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "cultural object,fraud,heritage protection,proposal (EU),public property,work of art", "workIds": "celex:91992E000495", "eurovoc_concepts": ["cultural object", "fraud", "heritage protection", "proposal (EU)", "public property", "work of art"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f5e7d110-91f1-4269-926a-371ac80942e7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/78a2a07c-1798-4163-8e3d-f14b996f3f85", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 455/92 by Mr Fran\u00e7ois MUSSO to the Commission. Directive on wild birds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSSO", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "EC Directive,animal breeding,animal life,environmental law,environmental protection,hunting regulations,physical environment,protection of animal life", "workIds": "celex:91992E000455", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EC Directive", "animal breeding", "animal life", "environmental law", "environmental protection", "hunting regulations", "physical environment", "protection of animal life"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/78a2a07c-1798-4163-8e3d-f14b996f3f85", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b6526e77-3d97-47e4-b794-58fb7664e54a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 486/92 by Mr Miguel ARIAS CA\u00d1ETE to the Commission. ' La Mancha' Integrated Development Operation -Tomelloso-Argamasilla road", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ARIAS CANETE,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Castile-La Mancha,European Regional Development Fund,integrated development programme,project management,road building", "workIds": "celex:91992E000486", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Castile-La Mancha", "European Regional Development Fund", "integrated development programme", "project management", "road building"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b6526e77-3d97-47e4-b794-58fb7664e54a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/76e848da-01d7-4b41-b18d-265720de6a3c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 478/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Tax rate for small and medium sized undertakings in Greece", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Greece,basis of tax assessment,corporation tax,fiscal policy,profit,small and medium-sized enterprises,tax system", "workIds": "celex:91992E000478", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "basis of tax assessment", "corporation tax", "fiscal policy", "profit", "small and medium-sized enterprises", "tax system"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/76e848da-01d7-4b41-b18d-265720de6a3c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9b529f5f-ee4f-4806-8730-9607c9727774", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 499/92 by Mr V\u00cdctor Manuel ARBELOA MURU to European Political Cooperation. Assistance for border commissions set up by Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ARBELOA MURU,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Burundi,Democratic Republic of the Congo,European political cooperation,Rwanda,border war", "workIds": "celex:91992E000499", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Burundi", "Democratic Republic of the Congo", "European political cooperation", "Rwanda", "border war"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9b529f5f-ee4f-4806-8730-9607c9727774", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/42b79c6e-d3a5-4bcb-89e6-0271ae88ad5a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 498/92 by Mr V\u00cdctor Manuel ARBELOA MURU to European Political Cooperation. Firing squad executions in Chad", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ARBELOA MURU,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Chad,European political cooperation,death penalty,human rights", "workIds": "celex:91992E000498", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Chad", "European political cooperation", "death penalty", "human rights"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/42b79c6e-d3a5-4bcb-89e6-0271ae88ad5a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2bd0169f-e57d-4306-bd91-af69d1ddd1cd", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 489/92 by Mr S\u00e9rgio RIBEIRO to the Council. Protection of highly endangered species", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,RIBEIRO", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Portugal,protected species,protection of animal life,protection of plant life,watercourse", "workIds": "celex:91992E000489", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Portugal", "protected species", "protection of animal life", "protection of plant life", "watercourse"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2bd0169f-e57d-4306-bd91-af69d1ddd1cd", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/77d58282-61e6-436d-84ae-1af5140b46d1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 494/92 by Mr V\u00cdctor Manuel ARBELOA MURU to the Commission. Recovery of works of art", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ARBELOA MURU,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "EC Directive,cultural heritage,cultural object,export,heritage protection,work of art", "workIds": "celex:91992E000494", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EC Directive", "cultural heritage", "cultural object", "export", "heritage protection", "work of art"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/77d58282-61e6-436d-84ae-1af5140b46d1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7a306a82-1091-48e7-bff6-d067f3943608", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 497/92 by Mr V\u00cdctor Manuel ARBELOA MURU to European Political Cooperation. Executions in Tunisia", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ARBELOA MURU,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "European political cooperation,Tunisia,UN international covenant,death penalty,prison system", "workIds": "celex:91992E000497", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European political cooperation", "Tunisia", "UN international covenant", "death penalty", "prison system"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7a306a82-1091-48e7-bff6-d067f3943608", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7f878b02-d459-430a-b8ce-84e6be5f7278", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 459/92 by Mr Klaus WETTIG to the Commission. Harmonization of copyright laws and the period of protection it provides, in connection with rules governing the internal market", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,WETTIG", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "approximation of laws,copyright,free competition,intra-EU trade,literary and artistic property,work of art", "workIds": "celex:91992E000459", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "copyright", "free competition", "intra-EU trade", "literary and artistic property", "work of art"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7f878b02-d459-430a-b8ce-84e6be5f7278", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/abd044bc-a8e6-448e-84d7-a340d7bd1388", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 471/92 by Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. The social and economic situation in the European Community (ESC assessment)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "European Economic and Social Committee,Single European Act,activity report,economic growth,economic situation,inflation,labour market,unification of Germany", "workIds": "celex:91992E000471", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Economic and Social Committee", "Single European Act", "activity report", "economic growth", "economic situation", "inflation", "labour market", "unification of Germany"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/abd044bc-a8e6-448e-84d7-a340d7bd1388", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bc163b91-87bd-4e81-8d43-922ac47e8a1c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 487/92 by Mr John IVERSEN to the Commission. CO2 emissions arising from the construction of two new power stations in Denmark", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,IVERSEN", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Denmark,air quality,anhydride,competence of the Member States,electrical energy,environmental impact,power plant", "workIds": "celex:91992E000487", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Denmark", "air quality", "anhydride", "competence of the Member States", "electrical energy", "environmental impact", "power plant"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bc163b91-87bd-4e81-8d43-922ac47e8a1c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3a0c2101-8e1e-47f1-9437-d8c60fdb1ad5", "title": "92/161/EEC: Commission Decision of 9 March 1992 amending the Commission Decision 92/160/EEC establishing the regionalization of certain third countries for imports of equidae", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "equidae,health control,import,region,third country", "workIds": "celex:31992D0161,oj:JOL_1992_071_R_0029_027", "eurovoc_concepts": ["equidae", "health control", "import", "region", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3a0c2101-8e1e-47f1-9437-d8c60fdb1ad5", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4bb7b532-d588-4a71-948a-756831162952", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 460/92 by Mr Klaus WETTIG to the Commission. Simplified procedure for establishing the customs value of certain perishable products (fresh fruit and vegetables)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,WETTIG", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "customs valuation,fresh fruit,fresh vegetable,import,simplification of formalities", "workIds": "celex:91992E000460", "eurovoc_concepts": ["customs valuation", "fresh fruit", "fresh vegetable", "import", "simplification of formalities"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4bb7b532-d588-4a71-948a-756831162952", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6a2024e4-3c98-4752-a342-a0f80135dcf6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 490/92 by Mr Giuseppe MOTTOLA to the Commission. Tanning, leather and footwear industry", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MOTTOLA", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "EU trade mark,Italy,environmental law,hides and furskins industry,import,leather industry,liberalisation of trade,quality label,trade promotion", "workIds": "celex:91992E000490", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU trade mark", "Italy", "environmental law", "hides and furskins industry", "import", "leather industry", "liberalisation of trade", "quality label", "trade promotion"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6a2024e4-3c98-4752-a342-a0f80135dcf6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/10a44aa9-1297-4ed2-805a-fc88fe374b1b", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 465/92 by Mr Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Infringement of the Council directive on broadcasting", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ALAVANOS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Greece,application of EU law,broadcasting,commercial media,free movement of programmes,freedom of expression,television", "workIds": "celex:91992E000465", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "application of EU law", "broadcasting", "commercial media", "free movement of programmes", "freedom of expression", "television"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/10a44aa9-1297-4ed2-805a-fc88fe374b1b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4eed51d5-8ac1-4269-bdbe-f1f02f898ab7", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 479/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. Transit rights for freight vehicles through Hungary and Czechoslovakia", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Czechoslovakia,Greece,Hungary,association agreement (EU),road transport,transit", "workIds": "celex:91992E000479", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Czechoslovakia", "Greece", "Hungary", "association agreement (EU)", "road transport", "transit"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4eed51d5-8ac1-4269-bdbe-f1f02f898ab7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/186971c5-d089-45c5-a9d2-ce5026d45a2a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 451/92 by Mr Fran\u00e7ois MUSSO to the Commission. Directive on wild birds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSSO", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Council of the European Union,EC Directive,ecological balance,protected area,protected species,protection of animal life,wildlife", "workIds": "celex:91992E000451", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Council of the European Union", "EC Directive", "ecological balance", "protected area", "protected species", "protection of animal life", "wildlife"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/186971c5-d089-45c5-a9d2-ce5026d45a2a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dcbf5804-ac6b-4c29-87d1-5ab46c1cf159", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 477/92 by Mr Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Customs agents", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ALAVANOS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "European Social Fund,Portugal,competence of the Member States,customs,employment aid,job cuts,petition,reintegration into working life,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:91992E000477", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Social Fund", "Portugal", "competence of the Member States", "customs", "employment aid", "job cuts", "petition", "reintegration into working life", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dcbf5804-ac6b-4c29-87d1-5ab46c1cf159", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8ae3910b-fb1f-4bb4-b430-468971c19a49", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 493/92 by Mr Alex SMITH to European Political Cooperation. Political cooperation with Cuba", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SMITH ALEX", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Cuba,EU relations,European political cooperation,T\u00fcrkiye,UN Commission,charter on human rights,human rights,technical cooperation,trade agreement", "workIds": "celex:91992E000493", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Cuba", "EU relations", "European political cooperation", "T\u00fcrkiye", "UN Commission", "charter on human rights", "human rights", "technical cooperation", "trade agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8ae3910b-fb1f-4bb4-b430-468971c19a49", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b8306213-977f-48d5-814d-cad99aecb40a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 464/92 by Mr Yves FR\u00c9MION to the Commission. Community support for PEGASUS", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,FREMION", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "EU aid,aid to disadvantaged groups,association,performing arts,young person", "workIds": "celex:91992E000464", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "aid to disadvantaged groups", "association", "performing arts", "young person"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b8306213-977f-48d5-814d-cad99aecb40a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/753b4e7c-ddf9-4f6c-9e8e-1b65994804de", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 457/92 by Mr Luigi VERTEMATI to the Commission. Emigration from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to the EEC -proposal made by the Argentinian government", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VERTEMATI", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Argentina,EU financing,Eastern Bloc countries,brain drain,economic reconstruction,immigration", "workIds": "celex:91992E000457", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Argentina", "EU financing", "Eastern Bloc countries", "brain drain", "economic reconstruction", "immigration"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/753b4e7c-ddf9-4f6c-9e8e-1b65994804de", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d39f0cf9-b6f3-4d24-b38c-fb0b3560630d", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 461/92 by Dieter ROGALLA to the Commission. Impact of the internal market on employment", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,ROGALLA", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "aid for restructuring,customs,impact study,redevelopment aid,single market,vocational retraining,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:91992E000461", "eurovoc_concepts": ["aid for restructuring", "customs", "impact study", "redevelopment aid", "single market", "vocational retraining", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d39f0cf9-b6f3-4d24-b38c-fb0b3560630d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/74ca4889-47f6-438c-8c31-6dfaf1239ad6", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 598/92 of 9 March 1992 establishing a list of products excluded from the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries following the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "food inspection,import,nuclear accident", "workIds": "celex:31992R0598,oj:JOL_1992_064_R_0015_016", "eurovoc_concepts": ["food inspection", "import", "nuclear accident"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/74ca4889-47f6-438c-8c31-6dfaf1239ad6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ba777295-5c68-4b6b-b328-08135365b516", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 482/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Council. Identity checks in gypsy camps", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "European political cooperation,Greece,government violence,nomadism,police,racism,xenophobia", "workIds": "celex:91992E000482", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European political cooperation", "Greece", "government violence", "nomadism", "police", "racism", "xenophobia"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ba777295-5c68-4b6b-b328-08135365b516", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/29668975-3d2a-4c1b-99d4-602126ed9dff", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 480/92 by Mr Sotiris KOSTOPOULOS to the Commission. The Asmaki irrigation canal in Larissa", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,KOSTOPOULOS", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "EU financing,Thessaly,decontamination,industrial waste,pollution control measures,pollution from agricultural sources,water management in agriculture,water pollution", "workIds": "celex:91992E000480", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU financing", "Thessaly", "decontamination", "industrial waste", "pollution control measures", "pollution from agricultural sources", "water management in agriculture", "water pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/29668975-3d2a-4c1b-99d4-602126ed9dff", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/00a4137d-812e-4e16-b17e-768e9cc79a3f", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 472/92 by Mrs Imelda READ to the Commission. Food imports", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,READ", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,USSR,animal product,database,foodstuff,frontier,health control,import,veterinary inspection", "workIds": "celex:91992E000472", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "USSR", "animal product", "database", "foodstuff", "frontier", "health control", "import", "veterinary inspection"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/00a4137d-812e-4e16-b17e-768e9cc79a3f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4856132d-4aa2-46ff-81c4-ad7e35c58180", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 454/92 by Mr Fran\u00e7ois MUSSO to the Commission. Directive on wild birds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSSO", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "EC Directive,animal life,application of EU law,environmental law,environmental protection,protection of animal life,report", "workIds": "celex:91992E000454", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EC Directive", "animal life", "application of EU law", "environmental law", "environmental protection", "protection of animal life", "report"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4856132d-4aa2-46ff-81c4-ad7e35c58180", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f9c8e0f3-81e8-460e-a177-f5dab3ee27be", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 467/92 by Mr Kenneth COLLINS to the Commission. Competition in the market place between alcoholic drinks", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "COLLINS,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "agricultural surplus,alcoholic beverage,consumer information,free competition,sales promotion,table wine", "workIds": "celex:91992E000467", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural surplus", "alcoholic beverage", "consumer information", "free competition", "sales promotion", "table wine"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f9c8e0f3-81e8-460e-a177-f5dab3ee27be", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/379abef8-562c-4d6f-8975-f78f916a8a02", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 485/92 by Mr David BOWE to the Commission. Provision of information to visually impaired persons", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "BOWE,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "European organisation,European standard,access to information,care of people with disabilities,database,disabled person,dissemination of information,social integration,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:91992E000485", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European organisation", "European standard", "access to information", "care of people with disabilities", "database", "disabled person", "dissemination of information", "social integration", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/379abef8-562c-4d6f-8975-f78f916a8a02", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ee7362ec-dc67-4df5-a477-436178d29f89", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 458/92 by Mr Luigi VERTEMATI to the Council. Emigration from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to the EEC -proposal made by the Argentinian government", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VERTEMATI", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,aid programme,approximation of laws,integration of migrants,migration control,migration policy,political asylum", "workIds": "celex:91992E000458", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "aid programme", "approximation of laws", "integration of migrants", "migration control", "migration policy", "political asylum"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ee7362ec-dc67-4df5-a477-436178d29f89", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/45c333f4-d39a-481a-b40f-493b50e6213c", "title": "Question No 4 by Sir Jack STEWART-CLARK (H-0081/92) to the Council: Educational practices on drug abuse", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,STEWART-CLARK", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "access to information,dissemination of information,drug addiction,health education", "workIds": "celex:91992H000081", "eurovoc_concepts": ["access to information", "dissemination of information", "drug addiction", "health education"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/45c333f4-d39a-481a-b40f-493b50e6213c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/77da2e49-7544-4289-8422-7b4f318aaa04", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 470/92 by Mr Jes\u00fas CABEZ\u00d3N ALONSO to the Commission. Arrangements for immigrants from Eastern Europe in the countries of South America", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CABEZON ALONSO,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Argentina,EU financing,Eastern Bloc countries,brain drain,economic reconstruction,immigration", "workIds": "celex:91992E000470", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Argentina", "EU financing", "Eastern Bloc countries", "brain drain", "economic reconstruction", "immigration"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/77da2e49-7544-4289-8422-7b4f318aaa04", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/86bc8a87-d1cc-42c9-905d-3d317db27ae6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 462/92 by Mr Mihail PAPAYANNAKIS to the Commission. Infringement of the Council Directive relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PAPAYANNAKIS", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Greece,application of EU law,competition,labour law,liquidation,opinion,privatisation,transfer of businesses", "workIds": "celex:91992E000462", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "application of EU law", "competition", "labour law", "liquidation", "opinion", "privatisation", "transfer of businesses"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/86bc8a87-d1cc-42c9-905d-3d317db27ae6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8c977f8a-6112-4231-94bb-b2c8a81a83a9", "title": "Radioactive waste package assay facility : application of assay technology. Volume III, Data processing : a series of final reports (1985-89/ No 40).", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "radioactive waste,research report", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CDNC13870", "eurovoc_concepts": ["radioactive waste", "research report"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8c977f8a-6112-4231-94bb-b2c8a81a83a9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/229dfc4f-d66d-4f91-ab05-c0361da470fb", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 474/92 by Mrs Imelda READ to the Commission. Food imports", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,READ", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,USSR,animal product,database,foodstuff,frontier,health control,import,veterinary inspection", "workIds": "celex:91992E000474", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "USSR", "animal product", "database", "foodstuff", "frontier", "health control", "import", "veterinary inspection"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/229dfc4f-d66d-4f91-ab05-c0361da470fb", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/86000cad-dbad-4491-b093-5cb5d0402ba8", "title": "Radioactive waste package assay facility : application of assay technology. Volume II, Investigation of active neutron and active gamma interrogation : a series of final reports (1985-89/ No 40).", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media", "date": "1992-03-09", "subjects": "radioactive waste,research report", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CDNB13870", "eurovoc_concepts": ["radioactive waste", "research report"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/86000cad-dbad-4491-b093-5cb5d0402ba8", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4bea3f80-8dee-4137-a359-9a3b4e0f730a", "title": "Radiological aspects of nuclear accident scenarios. Volume II, The RADE-AID system Post-Chernobyl action.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Research and Innovation", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "ionising radiation,life sciences,nuclear fission,nuclear industry,nuclear physics,nuclear reactor,nuclear research,nuclear safety,nuclear technology,physical sciences,public health,radiation protection,radiobiology", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CDNB12552", "eurovoc_concepts": ["ionising radiation", "life sciences", "nuclear fission", "nuclear industry", "nuclear physics", "nuclear reactor", "nuclear research", "nuclear safety", "nuclear technology", "physical sciences", "public health", "radiation protection", "radiobiology"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4bea3f80-8dee-4137-a359-9a3b4e0f730a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5fda5f6e-3e2a-42e5-90cf-f2b1db9e77ff", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/92 of 6 March 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application to milk and milk products of the arrangements provided for in the Interim Agreements between the Community and the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "Czechoslovakia,Hungary,Poland,import licence,milk,milk product", "workIds": "celex:31992R0584,oj:JOL_1992_062_R_0034_039", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Czechoslovakia", "Hungary", "Poland", "import licence", "milk", "milk product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5fda5f6e-3e2a-42e5-90cf-f2b1db9e77ff", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5cd61536-92eb-4070-a7fa-d506c5afe1b7", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 585/92 of 6 March 1992 relating to the exemption from the import levy for certain products in the cereals sector laid down in the Agreements between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "Czechoslovakia,Hungary,Poland,import levy,import licence", "workIds": "celex:31992R0585,oj:JOL_1992_062_R_0040_040", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Czechoslovakia", "Hungary", "Poland", "import levy", "import licence"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5cd61536-92eb-4070-a7fa-d506c5afe1b7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/731cb2b9-8ff3-40a3-bb6c-96c2e716e66f", "title": "Fatigue behaviour of welded joints in offshore steel structures : properties and service performance. Part II, Tubular connections.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "metal structure,research report,resistance of materials", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CDNB13395", "eurovoc_concepts": ["metal structure", "research report", "resistance of materials"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/731cb2b9-8ff3-40a3-bb6c-96c2e716e66f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/252518dc-8e4a-4535-ac3d-cb298e22e599", "title": "Fatigue behaviour of welded joints in offshore steel structures : properties and service performance. Part III, Fracture mechanics.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "metal structure,research report,resistance of materials", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CDNC13395", "eurovoc_concepts": ["metal structure", "research report", "resistance of materials"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/252518dc-8e4a-4535-ac3d-cb298e22e599", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3e6ebf77-399c-465d-9ff7-7c2e6ec0d590", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 575/92 of 6 March 1992 making imports of yellowfin tuna for industrial processing into products of CN code 1604 subject to the reference price", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "fresh fish,frozen product,reference price,sea fish", "workIds": "celex:31992R0575,oj:JOL_1992_062_R_0009_030", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fresh fish", "frozen product", "reference price", "sea fish"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3e6ebf77-399c-465d-9ff7-7c2e6ec0d590", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ebd3a43a-6813-4e8b-a488-d23224eae36a", "title": "Radiological aspects of nuclear accident scenarios. Volume I, Real-time emergency response systems Post-Chernobyl action.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Research and Innovation", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "ionising radiation,life sciences,nuclear fission,nuclear industry,nuclear physics,nuclear reactor,nuclear research,nuclear safety,nuclear technology,physical sciences,public health,radiation protection,radiobiology", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CDNA12552", "eurovoc_concepts": ["ionising radiation", "life sciences", "nuclear fission", "nuclear industry", "nuclear physics", "nuclear reactor", "nuclear research", "nuclear safety", "nuclear technology", "physical sciences", "public health", "radiation protection", "radiobiology"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ebd3a43a-6813-4e8b-a488-d23224eae36a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b81a017b-6a21-403a-9899-dcb4c0dd5f92", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to labelling of the materials used in the main components of footwear for sale to the final consumer", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "access to information,approximation of laws,consumer protection,footwear industry,labelling", "workIds": "celex:51991PC0529,comnat:COM_1991_0529_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_074_R_0010_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["access to information", "approximation of laws", "consumer protection", "footwear industry", "labelling"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b81a017b-6a21-403a-9899-dcb4c0dd5f92", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(91) 529 final - SYN 378 \n\nBrussels, 6 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DIRECTIVE \n\non the approximation of the laws, regulations and \n\nadministrative provisions of the Member States \n\nrelating to labelling of the materials used \n\nin the main components of footwear for \n\nsale to the final consumer \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\f\u00c0 \n\nExplanatory memorandum \n\n1. Background \n\nThe problem of footwear labelling goes back more than a decade. In some \nMember States, regulations were initially introduced on a private basis. This was followed by the introduction of \nin other \nMember States. legislation \n\nBetween 1986 and 1990 the Commission examined draft Spanish and French \ndecrees in this sector in the light of Article 30 et sea, of the Treaty. After expressing various comments, which were taken into consideration, the \nCommission accepted that these measures were lawful. However, although \nthey were legally acceptable, the measures caused problems in intra-EC \ntrade as they were not coordinated and contained manifest differences. Each \nproduct has to be specially marked according to the Member State of \ndestination, resulting in particular in additional costs and barriers on \nmoving from one market to another within the Community. This situation has \nbeen severely criticized in numerous complaints from the trade groups \nconcerned and by some Member States. There is a real risk that other \nMember States wi I I take the same approach and that manufacturers will be \nobliged to label products according to their destination within the \nCommun i t y. 2. The need for Community action \n\nDecisions taken under Article 30 ensures some degree of liberalization but \ncannot be used to introduce harmonization. It has not been possible to \navoid having different Spanish and the French legislation. The ways of \nensuring full and effective free movement in this area are in particular \nmutual recognition, voluntary harmonization or recourse to Article 100a. As far as mutual recognition is concerned, the differences between the \nSpanish and the French legislation and the absence of provisions in a \nnumber of other Member States mean that it would be limited in scope. The industry concerned was asked to start work on voluntary harmonization \nbut this ran into the major objection that such an approach would not \nensure that the system adopted applied to imports originating in third \ncountries (these accounting for nearly 35% of consumption). This would \ndistort competition and would not go very far towards providing consumers \nwith information. Furthermore, it would not be possible for harmonization \nof this kind to replace national regulations. -Ab<\u00b1 \n\nThe most effective way of overcoming the disadvantages of the different \nnational laws has therefore been found to be a harmonization directive. Consultations have shown that all of the Member States and the industry \nconcerned also support this approach and wish to have a binding system as \nthey believe this is the most appropriate way of overcoming the present \ndifficulties. This proposal has in general been favourably received by all of the experts \nrepresenting the groups consulted. It has the advantage of having the \ntechnical contribution of the industries concerned and the proposals put \nforward during the three consultation meetings with experts from the \nMember States and the consultation procedure with the Consumers' \nConsultative Committee. 3. Scope of the proposed measures \n\nAs the main purpose of labelling is to inform and the aim is to achieve \nharmonization within the Community, this draft directive lays down the \nmeans to be used for footwear labelling. It defines the various parts of \nfootwear to which labelling will refer and the constitutive materials of \neach of these parts which have to be taken into consideration. The plan is for the information given on the product to be in the form of \npictograms so that consumers will be presented with the information in the \nsame way throughout the Community. This will facilitate understanding and \nthe operation of labelling of the products as such. If necessary, it is \nplanned that a text explaining the pictograms in the language spoken at the \npoint of sale should be put up to facilitate understanding of the \npictograms. With the aim being to increase the information provided, it has been \nnecessary to strike a reasonable balance between the tendency to demand as \nmuch information as possible and the need for that information to be \nintelligible in a sufficiently direct manner. 4. Implementation \n\nIt is estimated that, following the adoption of the draft directive by the \nCouncil, It will take at least one year for the action required for its \napplication to be taken by the Member States. This means that the measures \ncan be expected to be implemented at the earliest on t July 1993. Proposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL DIRECTIVE \n\non the approximation of the laws, regulations and \n\nadministrative provisions of the Member States \n\nrelating to labelling of the materials used \n\nin the main components of footwear for \n\nsale to the final consumer \n\nThe Council of the European Communities, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community \n\nand in particular Article 100a thereof, \n\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission. In cooperation with the European Parliament, \n\nHaving regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee, \n\nWhereas in certain Member States there exist regulations on footwear \n\nlabelling which are designed to protect and inform the public as well as to \n\nsecure the legitimate interests of industry, \n\nWhereas the disparity of such regulations risks creating barriers to trade \n\nwithin the Community and thereby impeding the establishment of the internal \n\nmarket. Whereas it is expedient, in order to avoid the problems due to different \n\nsystems, to specify the exact elements of such a common labelling system \n\nfor footwear, \n\nWhereas Council Resolution of 9th November 1989 (89/C294/01) on the policy \n\nrelating to consumer protection calls for efforts to improve consumer \n\ninformation on products, \n\nWhereas it is in the interest both of consumers and of the footwear \n\nindustry to introduce a system reducing the risk of fraud by indicating the \n\nexact nature of the materials used in the main components of the item of \n\nfootwear, \n\n\fHAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE : \n\n- 2 fcb \n\nArticle 1 \n\n1. This Directive concerns the labelling of the materials used in the \n\nmain components of footwear articles for sale to the final consumer. 2. For t he purposes of t h i s 01rec11ve: \n\n'footwear' shall mean all articles of apparel with applied soles \n\ndesigned to protect or cover the foot, it does not include disposable \n\nfoot or shoe coverings of flimsy material (paper, sheeting of \n\nplastics, etc. ) without applied soles. 'Footwear' may range from sandals with uppers consisting simply of \n\nadjustable laces or ribbons to thigh boots the uppers of which cover \n\nthe leg and thigh. Among those products included therefore are: \n\ni) \n\nFlat or high heeted shoes for ordinary indoor or outdoor wear. il) Ankle-boots, half-boots, knee-boots, and thigh boots. iii) Sandals of various types, \"espadrilles\" (shoes with canvas \n\nuppers and soles of plaited vegetable material), tennis shoes, \n\nJogging shoes, bathing slippers and other casual footwear. iv) Special sports footwear which is designed for a sporting \n\nactivity and has, or has provision for, the attachment of \n\nspikes, sprigs, stops, clips, bars or the like and skating \n\nboots, ski boots and cross-country ski footwear, wrestling \n\nboots, boxing boots and cycling shoes. Also included are toy \n\nfootwear and skating boots with Ice or roller skates attached. - 3 -\n\nv) \n\nDancing slippers. vi) \n\nFootwear obtained in a single piece, particularly by moulding \n\nrubber or plastics or carving from a solid piece of wood. vii) Overshoes worn over other footwear; in some cases, they are \n\nheel-less. viii) Disposable footwear, with applied soles, generally designed to \n\nbe used only once. Ix) Orthopedic footwear. 3. This Directive does not cover: \n\ni) \n\nfootwear without applied soles, of textile material; \n\ni i) worn footwear ; \n\niii) articles of asbetos; \n\niv) parts of footwear not offered for sale to the final consumer; \n\nv) \n\nprotective footwear which is covered by Council Directive 89/686 \n\nEEC of 21 December 1989. 4. For the purposes of clarity and transparancy therefore and subject to \n\nthe provisions outlined in the proceeding paragraphs the description \n\nof products covered by this Directive has been made by reference to \n\nChapter 64 of the Combined Nomenclature C C N ' ). - 4 -\n\n5. Information on the composition of the footwear article shall be \n\nconveyed by means of a label as outlined in Article 4. i) \n\nThe label shall convey information relating to the three parts \n\nof the footwear article, namely a) upper, b) lining and sock and \n\nc) outerso le as defined in the annex. ii) The composition of the footwear article shall be indicated in \n\nline with the provisions of Article 4 on the basis of pictograms \n\nfor specific materials as outlined in the annex. iii) In the case of a) the upper b) the lining and sock classifi \n\ncation is determined by the constituent material or materials \n\nwhich have the greatest external surface area, no account being \n\ntaken of accessories or reinforcements such as ankle patches, \n\nedging, ornamentation, buckles, tabs, eyelet stays or similar \n\nattachments. iv) \n\nIn the case of c) the outersole classification is based on the \n\nvolume or mass of the materials contained therein, in line with \n\nthe provisions of Article 4. 6. 'Sale to the final consumer' shall also cover distance selling such as \n\nmail order, telephone order on the basis of a catalogue and other \n\nmethods such as television selling, without prejudice to further \n\npossible methods arising from the advance of new technologies. Article 2 \n\n1. Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that all \n\nfootwear items, whether produced in the EC or imported, placed on the \n\nmarket meet the labelling requirements of this Directive without \n\nprejudice to other relevant Community provisions. - 5 -\n\n2. Where footwear items not in conformity with the provisions regarding \n\nthe labelling requirements are placed on the market the competent \n\nMember State shall take appropriate action as specified in its \n\nnational provisions. Article 3 \n\n1. Member States shall not prohibit or impede the placement on the market \n\nof footwear items which comply with the labelling requirements of this \n\nDirective, by the application of national provisions governing the \n\nlabelling of certain footwear items or of footwear items in general, \n\nwithout prejudice to other relevant Community provisions. Article 4 \n\n1. The label shall provide information on the material which constitutes \n\nat least 85% of the surface area of a) the upper b) the lining and \n\nsock of the footwear article and at least 85% of the volume or mass of \n\nc) the outer sole. If no one material accounts for at least 85% \n\ninformation should be given on the two principal materials in the \n\ncomposition. 2. The information shall be conveyed by means of agreed pictograms as \n\ndefined and illustrated in the Annex together with a poster explaining \n\nthese pictograms in the national language(s) or other languages as \n\nnecessary, or any equivalent means (eg. video, electronic display, \n\ne t c. ) also able to convey the relevant information. The poster \n\nshall be displayed prominently and in the immediate vicinity of \n\nfootwear items at all points of sale to the final consumer. The \n\ndimensions of the characters contained therein shall not be less than \n\n2 cm. 3. The label must be on or attached to at least one footwear article in \n\neach pair e. g. imprinted on or stuck to the sole or the inside of the \n\nfootwear article, tied, embossed etc. - 6 -\n\n4. The label must be legible, firmly secure and accessible and the \n\ndimensions of the pictograms must be suffi cent I y large to make it \n\npossible to clearly understand the information contained therein. 5. The manufacturer or his authorized agent established in the Community \n\nis responsible for supplying the label and for the accuracy of the \n\ninformation contained therein. If neither the manufacturer nor his \n\nauthorized agent are established in the Community this obligation \n\nfalls on the person responsible for the placement on the market in the \n\nCommunity. The retailer remains reponsible for ensuring that the \n\nlabelling of footwear sold by him conforms with the provisions of this \n\ndirective. 6. The name and address of the manufacturer, his authorized agent \n\nestablished in the Community or the person responsible for the \n\nplacement on the market in the Community, if not indicated on the \n\nlabel, should be available to the consumer at the point of sale. Article 5 \n\nThe proceeding article outlines the basic requirements for footwear \n\nlabelling. Supplementary information such as textual information \n\nindication of leather type or means of attachment of the sole may be \n\nrecommended by Member States in their provisions. However, they shall \n\nnot prohibit or impede the placement on the market of footwear \n\nconforming to the requirements of this Directive in line with the \n\nprovisions of Article 3. Article 6 \n\n1. Labelling provisions as outlined in Article 4 will apply equally to \n\ndistance selling such as mail order or telephone order on the basis of \n\na catalogue and television selling. Because of special constraints, \n\n\f- 7 -\n\nthe relevant information will be conveyed by means of the following \n\nmethods, without prejudice to further possible methods arising from \n\nthe advance of new technologies: \n\na) Mail order and telephone order on the basis of a catalogue \n\nPictograms in line with the provisions of Article 4 wi 11 be \n\npresented for all footwear items which appear in the catalogue. An explanatory notice concerning the pictograms will appear once \n\nin the catalogue. This notice will be presented prominently and \n\nclose to the footwear articles displayed. b) Television Sel Iing \n\nPictograms in line with the provisions of Article 4 wi I I appear \n\nwith the display on the screen of the footwear article for sale. Article 7 \n\n1. Member States shall adopt and publish the laws regulations and \n\nadministrative provisions necessary to comply with the provisions of \n\nthis Directive by [31 December 1992]. They shall forthwith inform the \n\nCommission thereof. 2. They shall apply the provisions referred to in paragraph 1 from [30 \n\nJune 1993]. Stock invoiced or delivered to the retailer before this \n\ndate shall not be subject to the said provisions until [1 January \n\n1995]. 3. When Member States adopt these provisions, these shall contain a \n\nreference to this directive or shall be accompanied by such reference \n\nat the time of their official publication. The procedure for such \n\nreference shall be adopted by Member States. Article 8 \n\nThis Directive is addressed to the Member States. - 8 -\n\nANNEX \n\n1. DEFINITION AND CORRESPONDING PICTOGRAMS CONCERNING THE PARTS OF THE \n\nFOOTWEAR ARTICLE TO BE IDENTIFIED \n\na) Upper \n\nIt is the outerface of the structural element \n\nwhich is attached to the outersole. b) Lining and Sock (insole lining) \n\nIt is the upper and insole lining, consti \n\ntuting the inside of the footwear article. c) Outersole \n\nIt Is the bottom surface of the footwear \n\narticle which is subjected to abrasive wear \n\nand which is attached to the upper part of the \n\nfootwear article. 2. DEFINITION AND CORRESPONDING PICTOGRAMS OF THE MATERIALS \n\nThe pictograms concerning the materials should appear on the label \n\nbeside the pictograms relating to the 3 parts of the footwear article \n\nas specified in Article 4 and part 1 of the Annex. - 9 -\n\na) Leather \n\ni) A general term for hide or skin with its \n\noriginal fibrous structure more or less \n\nintact, tanned to be imputrescible. The \n\nhair or wool may or may not have been \n\nremoved. Leather is also made from a hide \n\nor skin which has been split into layers \n\nor segmented either before or after \n\ntanning, but if the tanned hide or skin is \n\ndisintegrated \n\nmechanically \n\nand \n\nor \n\nchemically into fibrous particles, small \n\npieces or powders and then, with or \n\nwithout the combination of a binding \n\nagent, is made into sheets or other forms, \n\nsuch sheets or forms are not leather. If \n\nthe leather has a surface coating, this \n\nsurface layer, however applied, must not \n\nbe thicker than 0. 15mm. Thus all leathers \n\nare covered without prejudice to other \n\nlegal \n\nobligations \n\ne. g. Washington \n\nConvent ion. ii) Coated Leather: leather where the surface \n\ncoating applied to the leather does not \n\nexceed one third of the total thickness of \n\nthe product but is in excess of 0. 15mm. b) Natural Textile Materials and Synthetic \n\nTextile Materials woven or non-woven \n\nTextile means all products falling under the \n\nscope of Dir. 71/307/CEE and any amendments \n\nthereof. -1\u20141\u20141\u20141-=-\n\u2014 I \u2014 | \u2014| J-| \n- I \u2014 I \u2014 I \u2014 l -i \n- l \u2014 l \u2014 I \u2014i JL \n\n\f- 10 -\n\nc) Rubber \n\nThis covers natural or synthetic rubber, an \n\nelastic material derived from latex from \n\nliving plants and/or from synthetic polymers \n\nand processed by vulcanisation. d) All other materials \n\n\fM \n\nFINANCIAL STATEMENT \n\nSECTION 1: FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS \n\n1. Title of operation \n\nDirective on the approximation of the laws, regulations and \nadministrative provisions of the Member States relating to the labelling \nof the materials used in the main parts of footwear for sale to the \nfinal consumer. 2. Budget heading involved \n\nB8-530: Completing the internal market - support \n\n3. Legal basis \n\nArticle 100a of the EEC Treaty \n\n4. Description of operation \n\n4. 1 Specific objectives of operation \n\nTo ensure full and effective free movement of the products \nconcerned; to provide consumer information \n\n4. 2 Duration \n\nOne-off action. 4. 3 Target population \n\nTrade groups and consumers in the Community \n\n5. Classification of expenditure or revenue \n\n5. 1 Compulsory/Non-compulsory: \n\nNon-compulsory \n\n5. 2 Different iated/Non-differentiated: \n\nNon-d i fferenti ated \n\n\f-Jfc \n\n5. 3 Type of revenue involved: \n\nNot appIi cab Ie \n\n6. Type of expenditure or revenue \n\n6. 1 100% subsidy: \n\nNot appIicab le \n\n6. 2 Subsidy for Joint financing with other sources in the public and/or \n\nprivate sector: \nNot appIicab le \n\n6. 3 Interest subsidy: \n\nNot app11 cab le \n\n6. 4 Other \n\nAdministrative expenditure to permit implementation of the \nDirective concerned. 6. 5 Should the operation prove an economic success, is there provision \nfor all or part of the Community contribution to be reimbursed? \nNo \n\n6. 6 Will the proposed operation cause any change in the level of \nrevenue? If so, what sort of change and what type of revenue is \ninvolved? \nNot applicab le \n\n7. Financial impact on appropriations for operations {part B of the budget) \n\nBOJ 29 000 \n\n7. 1 Method of calculating \n\ntotal cost of operation: \n\n20% of the working time of an auxiliary \nBOJ 12 200 \nshare: \n15 x BOJ 700 - \nMeeting of experts: \nBOJ 10 500 \nConsultant for technical assistance {one month) BOJ 6 300 \n\nsecretary \n\nfor one year + \n\n7. 2 Proportion of mini-budget in total cost of operation. calculation. Explain method of \nBOJ 29 000 representing \n\nthe total cost of the operation \n\n7. 3 Indicative schedule of commitment and payment appropriations: \n\nCA: ECU 29 000 \nPA: ECU 29 000 \n\n\f43 -\n\n8. What anti-fraud measures are planned in the proposal for the operation? \n\nAnti-fraud measures not required in view of the internal nature of the \nexpenditure. SECTION 2 : ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE (part A of the budget) \n\n1. Will the proposed operation involve an increase in the number of \n\nCommission staff? If so, how many? \nNo increase in staff \n\n2. Indicate the amount of staff and administrative expenditure involved in \n\nthe proposed operation. Explain the method of calculation. ECU 29 000 \n\n20% auxiliary secretary for one year + share of a person already \npresent in the departments \nSee point 7 \n\nSECTION 3: ELEMENTS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS \n\n1. Objectives and coherence with financial programming \n\n1. 1 Specific objective(s) of proposed operation. If possible this \nshould be quantified and must be shown for each of the years \nconcerned in the case of a multiannua I operation: \n(a) \n\nSee Section 1, 4. 1: to ensure full and effective free \nmovement of footwear within the Community \nPermanent operation principally at the expense of the \nMember States \n\n(b) \n\n1. 2 Is the operation incorporated in the financial programming of the \n\nDG for the years concerned?: \nYes \n\n1. 3 To which broader objective defined in the DG's financial \nprogramming does the objective of the proposed operation \ncorrespond? \n\n\f-**4 -\n\nObjective: completing the internal market \nSub-objective: abolition of technical barriers \nObjective: harmonization of laws \n\n2. Grounds for the operation \n\n2. 1 \n\nReasons for choosing this operation rather than an alternative \nwhich would achieve the same objectives. The justification must \nbe based on three criteria*. Two alternatives were considered: \n\nmutual recognition: this would have been of limited scope \nin view of the differences between the Spanish and the \nFrench legislation in force and the absence of provisions \nin the other Member States \nvoluntary harmonization: this approach would be unable to \nensure that the agreed system applied to imports \noriginating in third countries (which account for 35% of \nconsumption). A harmonization directive has therefore been \nfound to be the most effective means. (a) \n\n(b) \n\n(c) \n\nCost: \nModest \nSpin-off effect (impact beyond the specific \nobjective(s)): \nAvoidance of complaints from economic operators \nMultiplier effect (ability to mobilize other sources of \nfinance): \nNot appi icable \n\n3. Monitoring and evaluation of the operation \n\n3. 1 Performance indicators selected: \nTransposition into national laws \n\n3. 2 Details and frequency of planned evaluation: \n\nBi-annual examination of the situation with industry and the \nMember States \n\n3. 3 Main factors of uncertainty which could affect the specific results \n\nof the operation: \n\n\fJ5 \n\nFOOTWEAR LABELLING \n\nImpact Assessment Form \n\nTitle of Proposal: \n\nDraft Council Directive on the approximation of the Laws, \nRegulations and Administrative Provisions \nof the Member States relating to the Labelling of \nthe Materials used in the Main Components of Footwear \nfor Sale to the Final Consumer \n\nReference Number: 21219. 2 \n\n1. The Proposal \n\n- National legislation on Footwear Labelling exists in \nSpain and France. The French decree which was Imple \nmented on 1 June 1990 caused significant disquiet in the \nEC footwear Industry because of the adverse effects which \nit could have on intra-EC trade. At the beginning of \n1990 therefore the European Confederation of the Footwear \nIndustry requested the EC Commission to begin discussions \nleading to the introduction of a harmonized labelling \nsystem for footwear sold in the EC on the basis of agreed \nsymbols. This idea was then presented to the Member \nStates who Indicated their support for the initiative. The main alms of the initiatives are to provide the con \nsumer with essential information while aiding the free \ncirculation of footwear in EC by replacing divisive na \ntional regulations with harmonized Community provisions. 2. The Impact on business \n\nI) The proposal will directly affect footwear manufac \n\nturers, importers, distributors and retailers. ii) The Industry is composed almost entirely of SMEs. Fragmentation and labour intensity are the sector's \nmost significant traits. There are over 15,000 footwear businesses in the Commu \nnity, with an average of 24 employees/firm. -At \n\nill) Italy is by far the largest producer, with an average \nannual % share of total EC production of 40%. Other \nlarge producers are Spain (15%), France (15%), followed \nby the UK (12%), Portugal (8%) and Germany (7%). Pro \nduction in the other EC countries Is marginal. 3. What will business have to do to comply with the proposal? \n\nThe directive provides for the obligatory labelling of ail \nfootwear for sale to the final consumer. Thus, it is the \nresponsibility of the footwear manufacturer, his author \nized agent and the retailer to ensure that all footwear \noffered for sale displays the required information in a \ncorrect form in line with the provisions of this \ndirective. In practice the manufacturer will supply the \nlabel and take responsibility for the accuracy of its \ninformation while It Is up to the retailer to ensure that \nthe label is present at the time of purchase. 4. What economic effects is the proposal likely to have? \n\ni) Approximately 346,000 people were employed in the EC \nfootwear industry in 1990. Italy has by far the largest \nemployment figure with 114,000 followed by the UK, \nPortugal, France, Spain and Germany with 54,000, 49,000, \n38,000, 38,000 and 33,000 respectively. During the \n1980s employment in the industry fell at a rate of over \n3% p. a. and this downward trend is continuing. ii) This proposal Is unlikely to have any direct effect on \n\nemployment or investment in the Industry. However, giv \nen the objectives of a) informing the consumer of the \ncomposition of the item of footwear, and b) aiding the \nfree circulation of footwear throughout the community it \nis to be hoped that Implementation of the proposal will \nhave a positive effect on the industry. A unified har \nmonized system will replace different national practises \nand additional costs which would have to be borne by the-\nindustry in preparing different labels for various EC \nmarkets will be avoided. Furthermore, heightened con \nsumer awareness of the composition of footwear articles \nmay increase their appreciation of and confidence in the \nproduct and encourage further purchases. 5. What about the specific situation of SMEs? \n\n- In view of the fact that the industry is composed almost \nentirely of small and medium sized enterprises the propos \nal was prepared with the interests and specific situation \nof SMEs continuously borne in mind. - / *-\n\n6. Consultation \n\nRegular consultations with the European Footwear Federa \ntion took place during the evolution of the project com \nbined with meetings with representatives from the Member \nStates on four seperate occasions. A formal consultation \nof the information and education section of the Consumer \nConsultative Council (CCC) took place on 11 April 1991 and \nthe opinion of the complete Committee was presented during \ntheir session of 16 October 1991. The views of individual \norganisations were also received in the form of written \ncomments. The relevant views of other concerned bodies \nwere conveyed through the Interservice consultation of \nother Commission Departments such as the Consumer Policy \nService, and the Directorate General \nfor Enterprise \nPolicy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives. - The views of all the concerned parties have been taken \nInto account in preparing this proposal. The main points \nof debate centered on the amount of Information to be giv-\nen on the label. The different views of various Member \nStates have been discussed and considered during the \nmeetings held over the past 18 months while the greatest \ndivergence of opinion on the project exists between the \nCCC and the European Footwear Federation. The CCC would like information to be given on the upper, \nlining, \ninnersole, midsole and sole along with an \nindication of the means of attachment of the sole i. e. stitched, stuck etc. Furthermore, they believe that the \nconsumer should be informed of the characteristics of the \nmaterials used e. g. waterproof and that the exact \ndimensions of the proposed label should be laid down in \nthe directive. On the other hand industry stresses the necessity for \nsimplicity and clarity in the directive's provisions. They propose just one overall category for leather, a \ncategory for natural textile products and one final \ncategory covering rubber and synthetic materials. In \ntheir view just three parts of the footwear article should \nbe identified viz a) the upper, b) the sock and vamp \nlining, and c) the sole in order not to detract from the \nappearence of the shoes which are, of course, fashion \nobjects. For its part the leather industry, represented \nby Cotance, has continously stressed the importance of \ndifferentiating between \"leather\" and \"coated leather\" in \norder to ensure conformity with existing internationally \nagreed definitions. The proposed directive is intended to strike a reasonable \nbalance between the various viewpoints and have the twin \nmerits of providing the consumer with essential informa \ntion without becoming too cumbersome or burdensome on the \nSMEs in the sector. ISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM (91) 529 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n10 06 \n\nCatalogue number : CB-CO-91-592-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-78944-1 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a2a2ebad-fac2-481c-84ab-3811aa0e29a2", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 597/92 of 6 March 1992 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "chemical product,starch,statistical nomenclature,tariff nomenclature,trading operation", "workIds": "celex:31992R0597,oj:JOL_1992_064_R_0013_015", "eurovoc_concepts": ["chemical product", "starch", "statistical nomenclature", "tariff nomenclature", "trading operation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a2a2ebad-fac2-481c-84ab-3811aa0e29a2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ea62466c-93ce-40ca-87f3-66e196a987ab", "title": "Fourth ACP-EEC Convention : signed at Lom\u00e9 on 15 December 1989.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ACP Council of Ministers", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "ACP countries,ACP-EU Convention,ACP-EU Council of Ministers,ECSC,EU international partnership,Lom\u00e9 Convention,Mauritius,Protocol (EU),Stabex,capital movement,cooperation agreement,cooperation agreement (EU),cooperation policy,economic cooperation,financial cooperation,fourth Lom\u00e9 Convention,industrial cooperation,international convention,international trade,protocol on sugar,technical cooperation,trade cooperation,trading operation", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_BX7191073", "eurovoc_concepts": ["ACP countries", "ACP-EU Convention", "ACP-EU Council of Ministers", "ECSC", "EU international partnership", "Lom\u00e9 Convention", "Mauritius", "Protocol (EU)", "Stabex", "capital movement", "cooperation agreement", "cooperation agreement (EU)", "cooperation policy", "economic cooperation", "financial cooperation", "fourth Lom\u00e9 Convention", "industrial cooperation", "international convention", "international trade", "protocol on sugar", "technical cooperation", "trade cooperation", "trading operation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ea62466c-93ce-40ca-87f3-66e196a987ab", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/47c84130-c9ff-4f90-b2be-8363f78b212d", "title": "Fatigue behaviour of welded joints in offshore steel structures : properties and service performance. Part I, Thick plates.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Research and Innovation,Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "metal structure,research report,resistance of materials", "workIds": "genpub:PUB_CDNA13395", "eurovoc_concepts": ["metal structure", "research report", "resistance of materials"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/47c84130-c9ff-4f90-b2be-8363f78b212d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bccba488-38b0-47cf-a6e7-08915ee3ad0a", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 582/92 of 6 March 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application, in respect of potato starch, of the import arrangements provided for in the Interim Agreement concluded between the European Economic Community and the European Coal and Steel Community, on the one hand, and the Republic of Poland, on the other", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "Poland,import licence,potato,starch", "workIds": "celex:31992R0582,oj:JOL_1992_062_R_0029_037", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Poland", "import licence", "potato", "starch"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bccba488-38b0-47cf-a6e7-08915ee3ad0a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/258e38fa-da5f-4e80-89ea-e8bcffdd3ac4", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 583/92 of 6 March 1992 laying down interim rules of application of the generalized system of preferences applicable in the potato starch sector as a result of the implementation of the Interim Agreement concluded with Poland", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-06", "subjects": "Poland,generalised preferences,import licence,potato,starch", "workIds": "celex:31992R0583,oj:JOL_1992_062_R_0032_038", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Poland", "generalised preferences", "import licence", "potato", "starch"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/258e38fa-da5f-4e80-89ea-e8bcffdd3ac4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/40b2fd9a-96bb-4441-a2a3-4d490e7666d4", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 579/92 of 5 March 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application in the poultrymeat and egg sectors of the arrangements provided for in the Interim Agreements between the Community and the Republic of Poland, the Republic Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "Hungary,Poland,egg,import licence,poultrymeat", "workIds": "celex:31992R0579,oj:JOL_1992_062_R_0015_034", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Hungary", "Poland", "egg", "import licence", "poultrymeat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/40b2fd9a-96bb-4441-a2a3-4d490e7666d4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b8a0ad93-4138-40a0-b893-f84f25264e16", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE supplementing the Statute for a European mutual society with regard to the involvement of employees", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "European social policy,labour law,mutual assistance scheme", "workIds": "celex:51991PC0273(06),comnat:COM_1991_0273(06)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_099_R_0057_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European social policy", "labour law", "mutual assistance scheme"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b8a0ad93-4138-40a0-b893-f84f25264e16", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/396fda9b-89e8-4ada-9c8e-d732f9a78b8d", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 580/92 of 5 March 1992 laying down for the period 1 March to 30 June 1992 certain rules in respect of the system of generalized tariff preferences applicable in the poultrymeat and egg sector as a result of implementing the Interim Agreements concluded with the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "Hungary,Poland,egg,generalised preferences,poultrymeat", "workIds": "celex:31992R0580,oj:JOL_1992_062_R_0026_035", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Hungary", "Poland", "egg", "generalised preferences", "poultrymeat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/396fda9b-89e8-4ada-9c8e-d732f9a78b8d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/078697df-2cfa-43b0-9139-01a371ec1e4d", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community ECO-audit scheme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "EU policy,environmental protection,management audit,management information system,secondary sector,type of business", "workIds": "celex:51991PC0459,comnat:COM_1991_0459_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_076_R_0002_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU policy", "environmental protection", "management audit", "management information system", "secondary sector", "type of business"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/078697df-2cfa-43b0-9139-01a371ec1e4d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/467b47e2-e2c0-4ee9-8982-95b158f46ec0", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) on the Statute for a European mutual society", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "European social policy,mutual assistance scheme", "workIds": "celex:51991PC0273(05),comnat:COM_1991_0273(05)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_099_R_0040_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European social policy", "mutual assistance scheme"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/467b47e2-e2c0-4ee9-8982-95b158f46ec0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/83adcdf8-f320-4d04-853a-fe0af2807986", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) on the Statute for a European cooperative society", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "European company,company law,cooperative,inter-company cooperation,joint subsidiary,legal status,shareholding", "workIds": "celex:51991PC0273(03),comnat:COM_1991_0273(03)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_099_R_0017_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European company", "company law", "cooperative", "inter-company cooperation", "joint subsidiary", "legal status", "shareholding"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/83adcdf8-f320-4d04-853a-fe0af2807986", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/246e5b29-ee73-432b-a02c-ab3118876216", "title": "Question No 31 by Mr HADJIGEORGIOU (H-0170/92/rev. ) to European Political Cooperation: Definition of the terms ' nationality' and ' minority'", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,HADJIGEORGIOU", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,Western Balkans,ethnic group,national minority,nationalism,nationality,rights of minorities,self-determination", "workIds": "celex:91992H000170", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "Western Balkans", "ethnic group", "national minority", "nationalism", "nationality", "rights of minorities", "self-determination"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/246e5b29-ee73-432b-a02c-ab3118876216", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/26f7121f-4082-472c-98d0-6df0a302c125", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 112/90 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain compact disc player originating in Japan and the Republic of Korea", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "Japan,South Korea,dumping,sound reproduction equipment", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0083,comnat:COM_1992_0083_FIN", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Japan", "South Korea", "dumping", "sound reproduction equipment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/26f7121f-4082-472c-98d0-6df0a302c125", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf"], "text": "COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES \n\nCOM(92) 83 final \n\nBrussels, 5 March 1992 \n\nProposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 112/90 imposing a definitive \n\nant I-dumping duty on imports of certain compact disc \n\nplayer originating in Japan and the Republic of Korea \n\n(presented by the Commission) \n\n\fl/91/92-EN \n\nExplanatory memorandum \n\n1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 112/90 Imposed definitive anti-dumping \n\nduties on imports of certain compact disc players originating In Japan and \n\nthe Republic of Korea and falling within Taric code 8519991010. 2. One of the Member States has drawn the Commission's attention to the \n\nfact that Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 112/90, In conjunction with \n\nthe customs rules In force on compact disc players Incorporated in a \n\n\"rack\", might have consequences which were not desired by the Council when \n\nIt adopted the Regulation. Firstly, compact disc players which are not \n\nregarded as conferring Its main characteristic on the \"rack\" In which they \n\nare incorporated would escape the anti-dumping duty because they are \n\nclassified In a code other than Taric code 8519991010 and, consequently, \n\nwould fall outside the scope of the Regulation. Secondly, where a \"rack\" \n\nis assumed to derive Its principal characteristic from the compact disc \n\nplayer, the relevant anti-dumping duty is based on the total value of the \n\nrack and not, as provided In the Regulation, just on the value of the \n\ncompact disc player component alone. 3. In order to correct this anomaly the Commission proposes that \n\nRegulation No 112/90 should be amended so as to give full effect to the \n\nCouncil's Intentions when It adopted that Regulation. This would mean: \n\n(1) bringing compact disc players which escape the duty owing to their \n\nclassification within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 112/90; and \n\n(2) limiting the ant I-dumping duty on racks to an amount calculated \n\naccording to the value of the Incorporated compact disc player \n\nalone. 4. The Ant I-Dumping Committee has been consulted on this proposal; no \n\nobjection was raised. COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) NO \n\n/ \n\nOf \n\namending Regulation (EEC) No 112/90 Imposing a definitive \n\nant I-dumping duty on Imports of certain compact disc \n\nplayer originating in Japan and the Republic of Korea \n\n3 \n\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, \n\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, \n\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on \n\nprotection against dumped or subsidized Imports from countries not members \nof the European Economic Community,1 \n\nHaving regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after \n\nconsultation within the Advisory Committee as provided for under the above \n\nRegulation, \n\nWhereas: \n\n(1) \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 112/902 imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty \n\non Imports of certain compact disc players originating in Japan and \n\nthe Republic of Korea. Article 1(1) of the Regulation laid down \n\nits scope and, with great precision, the products affected by the \n\nanti-dumping duty. The scope Includes compact disc players falling \n\nwithin CN code ex 8519 99 10 (Tarlc code: 85 1999 10*10), \n\nincluding those which may be incorporated In a \"rack\" but are \n\nnevertheless capable of operating alone, separately from the \n\n\"rack\", by means of their own controls and power supply. 1 0J No L 209, 2. 8. 1988, p. 1. 2 0J No L 13, 17. 1. 1990, p. 21. - 2 -\n\n7 \n\n(2) \n\nCN code ex 8519 99 10 (Taric code: 8519 99 10*10), however, only \n\nIncludes a compact disc player incorporated in a rack insofar as It \n\ngives the \"rack\" its essential character. In other cases, I. e. where another apparatus gives the assembly its essential character, \n\nthe entire \"rack\" Is classified under a different tariff heading \n\nand consequently falls outside the scope of Regulation (EEC) \n\nNo 112/90. Conversely, where the compact disc player Is considered to give the \n\n\"rack\" Its essential character, the entire set of apparatus Is \n\nclassified under CN code ex 8519 99 10 (Tarlc code: 8519 99 10*10) \n\nand the anti-dumping duty is applied to the value of the entire \n\n\"rack\" and not Just to the value of the compact disc player \n\ncomponent. (3) \n\nCombined application of the customs rules and Article 1(1) of \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 112/90 results In the Regulation being \n\nimplemented in a way which deviates from the aims which the Council \n\nassigned to it. Regulation (EEC) No 112/90 was designed In \n\nparticular to make compact disc players incorporated In a \"rack\" \n\nsubject to an anti-dumping duty, whether or not they gave the \n\n\"rack\" its essential character. Furthermore, that Regulation was \n\nnot designed to make a \"rack\" Incorporating a compact disc player \n\nsubject to an ant I-dumping duty on the basis of Its total value but \n\non the basis of the value of the compact disc player alone. (4) \n\nConsequently Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 112/90 must be \n\namended. (5) \n\nIt is necessary to that end to take account of the fact that a \n\n\"rack\" Incorporating a compact disc player may be classified under \n\nCN codes ex 8519 31 00, ex 8519 39 00, ex 85 19 99 10, \n\nex 8520 31 90, ex 8520 39 10, ex 8520 39 90 and ex 8527 31 91 \n\n(Tarlc codes 8510 31 00*10, 8519 39 00*10, 8519 99 10*10, \n\n8520 31 90*30, 8520 39 10*10, 8520 39 90*10 and 8527 31 91*10) \n\naccording to the component which gives It Its essential character. - 3 -\n\nJ~ \n\n(6) \n\nTo ensure uniform application of the Regulation the amendment must \n\ntake effect as from 17 January 1990, the date of entry Into force \n\nof Regulation (EEC) No 112/90. However, Article 13(4)(a) of \n\nRegulation (EEC) No 2423/88 lays down that ant I-dumping and \n\ncountervailing duties shall be neither Imposed nor increased with \n\nretroactive effect, subject to Article 13(4)(b), which does not \n\napply to the case In point. Consequently, the amendment may not \n\nenter into force with retroactive effect as regards the Imposition \n\nof a definitive anti-dumping duty on Imports of certain compact \n\ndisc players falling within CN codes ex 8519 31 00, ex 8519 39 00, \n\nex 8520 31 90, ex 8520 39 10, ex 8520 39 90 and ex 8527 31 91 \n\n(Tarlc codes: 8519 31 00*10, 8519 39 00*10, 8520 31 90*30, \n\n8520 39 10*10, 8520 39 90*10 and 8527 31 91*10), \n\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULAT ION : \n\nArticle 1 \n\nArticle 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 112/90 Is hereby replaced by the \n\nfol lowing text: \n\n\"A definitive anti-dumping duty Is hereby Imposed on Imports of certain \n\ncompact disc players falling within CN codes ex 8519 31 00, ex 8519 39 00, \n\nex 85 19 99 10, ex 8520 31 90, ex 8520 39 10, ex 8520 39 90 and \n\nex 8527 31 91 (Taric codes 8519 31 00*10. 8519 39 00*10, 85 19 99 10*10, \n8520 31 90*30, 8520 39 10*10, 8520 39 90*10 and 8527 31 91*10). 1 I. e. stand-alone sound reproducers with a laser optical reading system and with \n\n1 The Tarie codes shown are those applicable on the date on which this \n\nRegulation enters into force. - 4 -\n\nexternal dimensions of at least 216 x 45 x 150 mm, equipped to accommodate \n\nup to a maximum of ten compact discs, including sound reproducers which may \n\nbe incorporated in a \"rack\" system but can nevertheless operate alone \n\nseparately from the \"rack\", with their own controls and power supply, \n\nfunctioning with AC mains supply of usually 110/120/220/240V and not \n\ncapable of operating with a power supply of 12V DC or less, originating In \n\nJapan and In the Republic of Korea. \" \n\nParagraph 4 of the same Article Is hereby replaced by the following text: \n\n\"Where the compact disc player is combined with other apparatus to form a \n\n\"rack\", the free-at-front1er value used in applying the anti-dumping duty \n\nshall be that of the compact disc player alone. If this value is not specified on the Invoice the Importer shall declare \n\nthe value of the player at the time of release for free circulation and \n\nshall submit appropriate evidence and Information on that occasion. \" \n\nThe former paragraph 4 of the same Article becomes paragraph 5. Article 2 \n\nThis Regulation shall come Into force on the day following Its publication \n\nIn the Official \n\nJournal of the European Communities. It shall apply with effect from 17 January 1990 save as regards the \n\nimposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on Imports of certain compact \n\ndisc players falling within CN codes ex 8519 31 00, ex 8519 39 00, \n\nex 8520 31 90, ex 8520 39 10, ex 8520 39 90 and 8527 31 91 (Tarlc codes: \n\n8519 31 00*10, 8519 39 00*10, 8520 31 90*30, 8520 39 10*10, 8520 39 90*10 \n\nand 8527 31 91*10), \n\n\f- 5 -\n\n-^ \n\nHowever, the provisions of Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) 2423/88 shall \n\napply from 17 January 1990 to compact disc players falling within the code \n\nnumbers listed above. This Regulation shall be binding In its entirety and directly epplicable in \n\na 11 Member States. Done at Brussels, \n\n1992. For the CounciI \n\nThe President \n\n\f\f? \n\nISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM (92) 83 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\nii 02 \n\nCatalogue number : CB-CO-92-085-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-11A1121-1 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/efb7f43f-4e85-4c2c-a6f5-e8a0dbf20317", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) on the Statute for a European association", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "association", "workIds": "celex:51991PC0273(01),comnat:COM_1991_0273(01)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_099_R_0001_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["association"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/efb7f43f-4e85-4c2c-a6f5-e8a0dbf20317", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f804d465-de09-48cd-a332-f20894e3680b", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE supplementing the Statute for a European association with regard to the involvement of employees", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "approximation of laws,association,labour law", "workIds": "celex:51991PC0273(02),comnat:COM_1991_0273(02)_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_099_R_0014_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "association", "labour law"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f804d465-de09-48cd-a332-f20894e3680b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/10617ecd-fc4e-437e-a1de-faa0367edbb4", "title": "Question No 62 by Mr STAVROU (H-0236/92) to the Commission: Social integration programmes for former political prisoners in Albania", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,STAVROU", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "Albania,political prisoner,social rehabilitation", "workIds": "celex:91992H000236", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Albania", "political prisoner", "social rehabilitation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/10617ecd-fc4e-437e-a1de-faa0367edbb4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7ec6ef17-d50a-410a-8459-be7a8fed4e53", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 565/92 of 5 March 1992 period 1 March to 30 June 1992 certain rules in respect of the system of generalized tariff preferences applicable in the pig meat sector as a result of implementing the Interim Agreements concluded with the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "Hungary,Poland,generalised preferences,import licence,pigmeat", "workIds": "celex:31992R0565,oj:JOL_1992_061_R_0016_021", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Hungary", "Poland", "generalised preferences", "import licence", "pigmeat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7ec6ef17-d50a-410a-8459-be7a8fed4e53", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/36a170ac-0eac-4d02-8380-59f0ecbf653d", "title": "92/156/EEC, Euratom, ECSC: Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 5 March 1992 appointing a Judge to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision_representatives_member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_complementary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Representatives of the Governments of the Member States", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "General Court (EU),appointment of staff", "workIds": "celex:41992D0156,oj:JOL_1992_067_R_0039_029", "eurovoc_concepts": ["General Court (EU)", "appointment of staff"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/36a170ac-0eac-4d02-8380-59f0ecbf653d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/427ab860-f43a-49a0-aa06-de69cf1598c7", "title": "92/160/EEC: Commission Decision of 5 March 1992 establishing the regionalization of certain third countries for imports of equidae", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "equidae,health control,import,region,third country", "workIds": "celex:31992D0160,oj:JOL_1992_071_R_0027_026", "eurovoc_concepts": ["equidae", "health control", "import", "region", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/427ab860-f43a-49a0-aa06-de69cf1598c7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5b42ece5-d747-4b12-acd2-4f0dbf45a762", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 564/92 of 5 March 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application in the pig meat sector of the regime provided for by the Intermediate Agreements concluded by the Community with the Republic of Poland, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, and the Republic of Hungary", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "Hungary,Poland,import licence,pigmeat", "workIds": "celex:31992R0564,oj:JOL_1992_061_R_0009_020", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Hungary", "Poland", "import licence", "pigmeat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5b42ece5-d747-4b12-acd2-4f0dbf45a762", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/43bf41d5-160a-4705-9b4b-dc382e94dabe", "title": "Question No 57 by Mr PESMAZOGLOU (H-0229/92) to the Commission: Need for a blueprint for economic and political reform in the countries of Eastern Europe", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PESMAZOGLOU", "date": "1992-03-05", "subjects": "Eastern Bloc countries,democratisation,economic reconstruction,economic structure,international aid", "workIds": "celex:91992H000229", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Eastern Bloc countries", "democratisation", "economic reconstruction", "economic structure", "international aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/43bf41d5-160a-4705-9b4b-dc382e94dabe", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/125d68bb-fae8-472d-812c-5902e2d97563", "title": "Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) amending Council Regulation ( EEC ) N\u00b0 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-04", "subjects": "agricultural product,foodstuff,free movement of goods,labelling,organic farming", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0069,comnat:COM_1992_0069_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_074_R_0009_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["agricultural product", "foodstuff", "free movement of goods", "labelling", "organic farming"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/125d68bb-fae8-472d-812c-5902e2d97563", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1ebe7091-11c0-484b-98f6-afab26b8d308", "title": "92/168/EEC: Commission Decision of 4 March 1992 authorizing Greece to restrict the marketing of seed of certain varieties of an agricultural plant species (Only the Greek text is authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-04", "subjects": "Greece,marketing restriction,oleaginous plant,seed", "workIds": "celex:31992D0168,oj:JOL_1992_074_R_0046_033", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Greece", "marketing restriction", "oleaginous plant", "seed"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1ebe7091-11c0-484b-98f6-afab26b8d308", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0f9c2008-8516-487a-b7a8-013b4f60afb4", "title": "92/194/Euratom: Commission Decision of 4 March 1992 relating to a procedure in application of Article 83 of the Euratom Treaty (XVII-002 - UKAEA Dounreay) (Only the English text is authentic)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-04", "subjects": "United Kingdom,application of EU law,nuclear safety,radioactive waste,uranium,waste management", "workIds": "celex:31992D0194,oj:JOL_1992_088_R_0054_047", "eurovoc_concepts": ["United Kingdom", "application of EU law", "nuclear safety", "radioactive waste", "uranium", "waste management"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0f9c2008-8516-487a-b7a8-013b4f60afb4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ead02ea3-a9fb-4b1a-9a35-e6f19adf8386", "title": "92/167/EEC: Commission Decision of 4 March 1992 setting up a Committee of Experts on the Transit of Electricity between Grids", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-04", "subjects": "committee (EU),electrical energy,energy transport,transit", "workIds": "celex:31992D0167,oj:JOL_1992_074_R_0043_032", "eurovoc_concepts": ["committee (EU)", "electrical energy", "energy transport", "transit"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ead02ea3-a9fb-4b1a-9a35-e6f19adf8386", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bad4be4b-35ba-45b2-b06e-5c867e101aaa", "title": "Amended proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE on unfair terms in consumer contracts", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_directive_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-04", "subjects": "approximation of laws,consumer protection,contract,goods and services,single market,unfair terms of contract", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0066,comnat:COM_1992_0066_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_073_R_0007_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "consumer protection", "contract", "goods and services", "single market", "unfair terms of contract"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bad4be4b-35ba-45b2-b06e-5c867e101aaa", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c7d75ece-a125-4723-8086-0365618d88ca", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 596/92 of 4 March 1992 on the supply of refined rape seed oil as food aid", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-04", "subjects": "Ethiopia,food aid,vegetable oil", "workIds": "celex:31992R0596,oj:JOL_1992_064_R_0009_014", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Ethiopia", "food aid", "vegetable oil"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c7d75ece-a125-4723-8086-0365618d88ca", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6fa0e753-620d-4217-919e-3da7e87fd905", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 541/92 of 3 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3061/84 laying down detailed rules for the application of the system of production aid for olive oil", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "aid system,common organisation of markets,olive oil,olive-growing,production aid", "workIds": "celex:31992R0541,oj:JOL_1992_059_R_0010_018", "eurovoc_concepts": ["aid system", "common organisation of markets", "olive oil", "olive-growing", "production aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6fa0e753-620d-4217-919e-3da7e87fd905", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/266cdfeb-b931-44cf-b92d-42e00eaed495", "title": "Question No 55 by Mr MELANDRI (H-0216/92) to the Commission: Financial cooperation with Israel", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MELANDRI", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "EU relations,Israel,financial cooperation,human rights,occupied territory", "workIds": "celex:91992H000216", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU relations", "Israel", "financial cooperation", "human rights", "occupied territory"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/266cdfeb-b931-44cf-b92d-42e00eaed495", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4e683499-371b-4d0a-807f-845174edfa85", "title": "92/183/EEC: Commission Decision of 3 March 1992 laying down the general conditions to be complied with for the import of certain raw materials for the pharmaceutical processing industry, coming from third countries, which appear on the list established by Council Decision 79/542/EEC", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "health control,import,meat,pharmaceutical industry,third country", "workIds": "celex:31992D0183,oj:JOL_1992_084_R_0033_031", "eurovoc_concepts": ["health control", "import", "meat", "pharmaceutical industry", "third country"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4e683499-371b-4d0a-807f-845174edfa85", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2816daa6-b04d-43e6-81d9-1fbd6c30f243", "title": "Question No 3 by Mr MELANDRI (H-0217/92) to the Council: Cooperation between the EEC and the Occupied Territories", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MELANDRI", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "EU aid,Israel,Palestine question,agricultural disaster,agricultural product,agricultural production,import (EU),occupied territory,rural development", "workIds": "celex:91992H000217", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Israel", "Palestine question", "agricultural disaster", "agricultural product", "agricultural production", "import (EU)", "occupied territory", "rural development"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/2816daa6-b04d-43e6-81d9-1fbd6c30f243", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1bc43107-1c14-46ce-b5d8-12b881c09434", "title": "Council Directive 92/11/EEC of 3 March 1992 amending Directive 89/396/EEC on indications or marks identifying the lot to which a foodstuff belongs", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "consumer information,foodstuff,labelling,trade information,trademark", "workIds": "celex:31992L0011,oj:JOL_1992_065_R_0032_029", "eurovoc_concepts": ["consumer information", "foodstuff", "labelling", "trade information", "trademark"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/1bc43107-1c14-46ce-b5d8-12b881c09434", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c573a2fc-7b12-4df6-9936-455aaedfe25c", "title": "Directory of the Commission of the European Communities : February 1992.", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdfa1b,print_sftcv", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#publication_general,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "European Commission,organisation chart", "workIds": "PUB_CB7392683", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Commission", "organisation chart"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c573a2fc-7b12-4df6-9936-455aaedfe25c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdfa1b", "print_sftcv"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7b4a3ed4-6694-41f3-b8b5-b622ee7ae17d", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 593/92 of 3 March 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2262/84 laying down special measures in respect of olive oil", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "EU aid,administrative check,olive oil,producer organisation,production aid", "workIds": "celex:31992R0593,oj:JOL_1992_064_R_0001_011", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "administrative check", "olive oil", "producer organisation", "production aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/7b4a3ed4-6694-41f3-b8b5-b622ee7ae17d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b97ae056-ed3f-40d4-b098-8b7aef898a85", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 540/92 of 3 March 1992 modifying Commission Regulation (EEC) No 650/91 on applications for assistance in the form of operational programmes from the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in respect of investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for fishery and aquaculture products", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "fmx4,html,pdfa1b,print,xhtml", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "EAGGF Guidance Section,EU financing,aquaculture,fishery product,marketing,operational programme", "workIds": "celex:31992R0540,oj:JOL_1992_059_R_0009_017", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAGGF Guidance Section", "EU financing", "aquaculture", "fishery product", "marketing", "operational programme"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b97ae056-ed3f-40d4-b098-8b7aef898a85", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["fmx4", "html", "pdfa1b", "print", "xhtml"], "text": "L_1992059EN. 01000901. xml\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n4. 3. 1992\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\nEN\n\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n\nL 59/9\n\n\n\n\n\nCOMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 540/92\nof 3 March 1992\nmodifying Commission Regulation (EEC) No 650/91 on applications for assistance in the form of operational programmes from the Guidance Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in respect of investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for fishery and aquaculture products\nTHE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,\nHaving regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4042/89 of 19 December 1989 on the improvement of the conditions under which fishery and aquaculture products are processed and marketed\u00a0(1), and in particular Article 8 (3) thereof,\nWhereas after consultation with the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry,\nWhereas Council Directive 91/492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs\u00a0(2) and Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products\u00a0(3), establish a harmonization of requirements for health conditions in respect to production, marketing and processing of the said products;\nWhereas in the case where financial assistance is requested from the Community, only requests in respect of projects complying with the requirements of these Directives can be accepted;\nWhereas only establishments, auction and wholesale markets, dispatch and purification centres which conform to the requirements of the said directives can carry out their activity;\nWhereas the Member States can consent to establishments, auction and wholesale markets, dispatch and purification centres already operating at 31 December 1991, an additional time limit in order to meet the requirements of the Directives;\nWhereas the investments included in the operational programmes submitted for Community financial assistance must be selected by the competent authority in the Member State;\nWhereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 650/91\u00a0(4) provides the information and documentation which must be included in the request for assistance in the form of an operational programme,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\nRegulation (EEC) No 650/91 is modified as follows:\nthe following point is added to Annex IV\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u20186. To check that the investments will comply with the requirements of Council Directives on health conditions. For establishments, auction and wholesale markets, dispatch and purification centres, not benefiting from the additional time limit in order to meet requirements, a certificate must accompany the request for assistance for each investment; this certificate must confirm that the facility in which the investment is to be made conforms to the Directives. For establishments, auction and wholesale markets, dispatch and purification centres, arranging an additional time limit in order to meet requirements in the Directives, the competent authority will make sure that on the date of the finishing of the work, the facilities are in accordance with the Directives. \u2019\n\n\n\n\nArticle 2\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 3 March 1992. For the Commission\n\nManuel MAR\u00cdN\n\nVice-President\n\n\n\n\n\n(1)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 388, 30. 12. 1989, p. 1. (2)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 1. (3)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 15. (4)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 72, 19. 3. 1991, p. 20"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c75f6e33-663f-48a9-b63a-a9c8d1da827f", "title": "Question No 27 by Mr MELANDRI (H-0218/92) to European Political Cooperation: Political and economic cooperation with Morocco", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MELANDRI", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "EU relations,Maghreb,Morocco,economic cooperation,free-trade agreement,political cooperation", "workIds": "celex:91992H000218", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU relations", "Maghreb", "Morocco", "economic cooperation", "free-trade agreement", "political cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c75f6e33-663f-48a9-b63a-a9c8d1da827f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/04aec393-bd46-488f-970a-21213d4b16c0", "title": "Question No 26 by Mr CUSHNAHAN (H-0222/92) to European Political Cooperation: Common Foreign and Security Policy", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary_question_time,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "CUSHNAHAN,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "EU policy,European political cooperation,European security,Treaty on European Union,foreign policy", "workIds": "celex:91992H000222", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU policy", "European political cooperation", "European security", "Treaty on European Union", "foreign policy"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/04aec393-bd46-488f-970a-21213d4b16c0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b68e2327-81d8-4b64-8c1c-77b33c035a1c", "title": "92/159/EEC: Council Decision of 3 March 1992 authorizing the Portuguese Republic to extend until 7 March 1993 the Agreement on mutual fishery relations with the Republic of South Africa", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "Portugal,South Africa,fisheries policy,fishing agreement", "workIds": "celex:31992D0159,oj:JOL_1992_069_R_0048_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Portugal", "South Africa", "fisheries policy", "fishing agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b68e2327-81d8-4b64-8c1c-77b33c035a1c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4d526e25-39a3-49a8-9e7a-29d1696642b6", "title": "92/153/EEC: Council Decision of 3 March 1992 extending the period of application of Decision 82/530/EEC authorizing the United Kingdom to permit the Isle of Man authorities to apply a system of special import licences to sheepmeat and beef and veal", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "Isle of Man,United Kingdom,beef,import licence,sheepmeat", "workIds": "celex:31992D0153,oj:JOL_1992_065_R_0033_030", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Isle of Man", "United Kingdom", "beef", "import licence", "sheepmeat"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/4d526e25-39a3-49a8-9e7a-29d1696642b6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/feb944e6-bdd5-4e27-add4-9c87c1c846f4", "title": "92/158/EEC: Council Decision of 3 March 1992 authorizing the Kingdom of Spain to extend until 7 March 1993 the Agreement on mutual fishery relations with the Republic of South Africa", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-03", "subjects": "South Africa,Spain,fishing agreement", "workIds": "celex:31992D0158,oj:JOL_1992_069_R_0047_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["South Africa", "Spain", "fishing agreement"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/feb944e6-bdd5-4e27-add4-9c87c1c846f4", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cf35773c-0469-4a61-a108-e8c023b8315f", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 407/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Commission. The discriminatory effect of national military service", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "equal treatment,job application,national service,worker (EU)", "workIds": "celex:91992E000407", "eurovoc_concepts": ["equal treatment", "job application", "national service", "worker (EU)"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cf35773c-0469-4a61-a108-e8c023b8315f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fb33d2b2-1f58-4d35-b61a-6afa48144295", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 413/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 VALVERDE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. New ' sherry' fraud in Great Britain", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VALVERDE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "United Kingdom,civil procedure,excise duty,fortified wine,fraud,ruling,tax harmonisation,tax system", "workIds": "celex:91992E000413", "eurovoc_concepts": ["United Kingdom", "civil procedure", "excise duty", "fortified wine", "fraud", "ruling", "tax harmonisation", "tax system"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fb33d2b2-1f58-4d35-b61a-6afa48144295", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5d7353ae-1dcd-4fef-968e-dcc1b474440a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 442/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Improper use of Community aid", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EU investment,Structural Funds,competence of the Member States,industrial policy,industrial restructuring", "workIds": "celex:91992E000442", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU investment", "Structural Funds", "competence of the Member States", "industrial policy", "industrial restructuring"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5d7353ae-1dcd-4fef-968e-dcc1b474440a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9d3a0359-5ed7-474d-a9ba-40c3776a732d", "title": "Amended proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) on certificates of specific character for foodstuffs", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "pdf,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#act_preparatory,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_act,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#proposal_regulation_ec,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "approximation of laws,brand name,consumer protection,foodstuff,preparation for market,product diversification", "workIds": "celex:51992PC0028,comnat:COM_1992_0028_FIN,oj:JOC_1992_071_R_0014_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "brand name", "consumer protection", "foodstuff", "preparation for market", "product diversification"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9d3a0359-5ed7-474d-a9ba-40c3776a732d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["pdf", "pdfa1b", "print"], "text": "COIVMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COSVMUNITIES \n\nCOM(92) 28 final \n\nBrussels, 2 March 1992 \n\nAmended proposal for a \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\nrtificates of specific character for foodstuffs \n\non ce \n\n(presented by the Commission pursuant to Article 149(3) \nof the EEC-Treaty) \n\nmi' m \n\nMfe \n\n\f- 2 -\n\nEXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM \n\nAt the part-session of 19 November 1991, the European Parliament delivered \n\nan opinion^) on the proposal for a Council Regulation on certificates of \n\nspecific character for foodstuffs presented by the Commission in document \nSEC(90) 2414 final<2>. This amended proposal takes account of the amendments proposed by \n\nParliament, which the Commission has endorsed. (1) OJ No C \n(2) OJ No C 30:. 6. 2. 1991, p. 9 \n\n\f3 -\n\nAMENDED PROPOSAL FOR A \n\nCOUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) \n\non certificates of specific character for foodstuffs \n\nIn response to the opinion delivered by the European Parliament at the \n\npart-session of 19 November 1991 on the proposal for a Regulation, \n\npresented by the Commission to the Council on 23 January 1991, on \n\ncertificates of specific character for foodstuffs, and pursuant to \n\nArticle 149(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic \n\nCommunity, the Commission has decided to amend the abovementioned \n\nproposal as follows: \n\n1. The title of the proposal is amended as follows: \"Proposal for a \n\nCouncil Regulation on certificates of specific character for \n\nagricultural products and foodstuffs\". 2. In Article 7(2) \"The competent authority shall forward the \n\napplication to the Commission if it considers\" is replaced by \"The \n\ncompetent authorities shall forward the application to the \n\nCommission if they consider\". 3. In Article 8(1) \"by the competent authority referred to in \n\nArticle 7\" is replaced by \"by the competent authorities referred to \n\nin Article 7\". 4. The text of Article 10 is replaced by the following: \n\n- 4 -\n\n\"1. In order to take account in particular of developments on the market for \n\nfoodstuffs and the progress of scientific and technical knowledge, the \n\ngroup which made the original application may submit to the competent \n\nauthority of the Member State in which it is established an application \n\nfor the amendment of the product specification on the basis of which it \n\nobtained the Community certificate of specific character. In this case, \n\nArticles 6 to 9 shall apply. 2. The necessary measures shall be taken to ensure that any change in \n\naccordance with paragraph 1 in the original specification, on the basis \n\nof which the Community certificate of specific character was obtained for \n\na foodstuff, is indicated in the labelling of that foodstuff. \" \n\n\fISSN 0254-1475 \n\nCOM(92) 28 final \n\nDOCUMENTS \n\nEN \n\n03 \n\nCatalogue number : CB-CO-92-058-EN-C \n\nISBN 92-77-41310-7 \n\nOffice for Official Publications of the European Communities \n\nL-2985 Luxembourg"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/320954d9-752e-4f27-aeb4-168cb3d95b5e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 439/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Use of dog hides for the manufacture of leather goods", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EU aid,Poland,animal skin,domestic animal,hides and furskins industry,protection of animals,use of aid", "workIds": "celex:91992E000439", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Poland", "animal skin", "domestic animal", "hides and furskins industry", "protection of animals", "use of aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/320954d9-752e-4f27-aeb4-168cb3d95b5e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a888b492-f3a9-4ecc-bccf-4cc02c916e65", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 551/92 of 2 March 1992 amending the list annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 55/87 establishing the list of vessels exceeding eight metres length overall permitted to use beam trawls within certain areas of the Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EU waters,conservation of fish stocks,fishing net,fishing regulations,fishing vessel,technical standard", "workIds": "celex:31992R0551,oj:JOL_1992_060_R_0005_016", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU waters", "conservation of fish stocks", "fishing net", "fishing regulations", "fishing vessel", "technical standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a888b492-f3a9-4ecc-bccf-4cc02c916e65", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c4f59625-ff75-40a4-bf68-1922cd4dceca", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 553/92 of 2 March 1992 amending the list annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 55/87 establishing the list of vessels exceeding eight metres length overall permitted to use beam trawls within certain areas of the Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EU waters,Germany,Netherlands,fishing regulations,fishing vessel,technical standard", "workIds": "celex:31992R0553,oj:JOL_1992_060_R_0007_018", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU waters", "Germany", "Netherlands", "fishing regulations", "fishing vessel", "technical standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c4f59625-ff75-40a4-bf68-1922cd4dceca", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f8ca3a0c-159e-4087-ab81-15b6f8fd3a68", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 415/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 VALVERDE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. Commission' s doctrine on exclusive product distribution systems", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VALVERDE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "application of EU law,cosmetic product,exclusive distribution agreement,luxury products industry,pharmacology,restriction on competition,retail selling", "workIds": "celex:91992E000415", "eurovoc_concepts": ["application of EU law", "cosmetic product", "exclusive distribution agreement", "luxury products industry", "pharmacology", "restriction on competition", "retail selling"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f8ca3a0c-159e-4087-ab81-15b6f8fd3a68", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e52e8d7c-578f-486a-8472-f490684580a1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 440/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Assistance for the disabled", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "VAT rate,disabled person,reduced price,telecommunications,telephone charges", "workIds": "celex:91992E000440", "eurovoc_concepts": ["VAT rate", "disabled person", "reduced price", "telecommunications", "telephone charges"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e52e8d7c-578f-486a-8472-f490684580a1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e6d5dcd6-378f-48ee-89be-ecb2cc7a446e", "title": "92/181/EEC: Council Decision of 2 March 1992 concerning the conclusion of a Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and COST third States on five concerted action projects in the field of biotechnology (Specific research and technological development programme ' Bridge' )", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "COST,cooperation agreement,research and development,scientific cooperation", "workIds": "celex:31992D0181", "eurovoc_concepts": ["COST", "cooperation agreement", "research and development", "scientific cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e6d5dcd6-378f-48ee-89be-ecb2cc7a446e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bbfbe72e-1fd5-4e1b-8744-46f12fc76d40", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 438/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Job losses at the Pirelli plant in Seregno", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EU financing,Lombardy,cessation of trading,co-financing,collective dismissal,pneumatic tyre,research project,use of aid", "workIds": "celex:91992E000438", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU financing", "Lombardy", "cessation of trading", "co-financing", "collective dismissal", "pneumatic tyre", "research project", "use of aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/bbfbe72e-1fd5-4e1b-8744-46f12fc76d40", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cfaa1668-30bb-471d-8b3c-eb99c8955ea2", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 217/93 of 2 February 1993 on olive oil storage contracts for the 1992/93 marketing year", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "olive oil,storage", "workIds": "celex:31993R0217,oj:JOL_1993_026_R_0009_014", "eurovoc_concepts": ["olive oil", "storage"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/cfaa1668-30bb-471d-8b3c-eb99c8955ea2", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0dabca79-57a9-4054-a5a0-951345ab764e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 419/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 VALVERDE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. Spain' s failure to comply with Council Directive 84/466/EURATOM", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VALVERDE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EAEC Directive,Spain,application of EU law,environmental protection,opinion", "workIds": "celex:91992E000419", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAEC Directive", "Spain", "application of EU law", "environmental protection", "opinion"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0dabca79-57a9-4054-a5a0-951345ab764e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3b9975d2-86af-4859-aa57-0fba65f9e81c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 449/92 by Mr Fran\u00e7ois MUSSO to the Commission. Directive on wild birds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSSO", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Council of the European Union,EC Directive,protected species,protection of animal life,report,wildlife", "workIds": "celex:91992E000449", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Council of the European Union", "EC Directive", "protected species", "protection of animal life", "report", "wildlife"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3b9975d2-86af-4859-aa57-0fba65f9e81c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6299ca81-6871-4989-b8bc-34decb25f51a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 402/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Effects of the MEDIA Programme", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European audiovisual area,cable distribution,free movement of programmes,national production,production aid", "workIds": "celex:91992E000402", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European audiovisual area", "cable distribution", "free movement of programmes", "national production", "production aid"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6299ca81-6871-4989-b8bc-34decb25f51a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d8c04ca6-7e69-4ee5-bb97-13322af931db", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 411/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Council. Support for audiovisual production", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European audiovisual area,audiovisual industry,audiovisual production,broadcasting,competence of the Member States,cultural heritage,free movement of programmes,television", "workIds": "celex:91992E000411", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European audiovisual area", "audiovisual industry", "audiovisual production", "broadcasting", "competence of the Member States", "cultural heritage", "free movement of programmes", "television"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d8c04ca6-7e69-4ee5-bb97-13322af931db", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5f976be7-bb81-492a-a2f4-9a0bb2727cbb", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 431/92 by Mr Kenneth STEWART to the Commission. Failure by UK Government to pay local authorities ERDF funding", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,STEWART KENNETH", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European Regional Development Fund,North West (England),United Kingdom,economic support,fraud,government,local government,payment", "workIds": "celex:91992E000431", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Regional Development Fund", "North West (England)", "United Kingdom", "economic support", "fraud", "government", "local government", "payment"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5f976be7-bb81-492a-a2f4-9a0bb2727cbb", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/46ff8c49-1043-4698-8021-4a20f9f6f8b1", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 412/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to European Political Cooperation. Manipulation of the economic embargo by Saddam Hussein", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European political cooperation,Iraq,UN resolution,UNO,economic sanctions,human rights,humanitarian aid,living conditions,repression", "workIds": "celex:91992E000412", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European political cooperation", "Iraq", "UN resolution", "UNO", "economic sanctions", "human rights", "humanitarian aid", "living conditions", "repression"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/46ff8c49-1043-4698-8021-4a20f9f6f8b1", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d045315b-7427-4a24-9bf2-485bb3333f3c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 446/92 by Mr James NICHOLSON to the Commission. Cost of intervention for beef", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,NICHOLSON", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EAGGF Guarantee Section,EU aid,beef,intervention buying,private stock,public stock", "workIds": "celex:91992E000446", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAGGF Guarantee Section", "EU aid", "beef", "intervention buying", "private stock", "public stock"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d045315b-7427-4a24-9bf2-485bb3333f3c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/eb79ac9a-123f-4a50-87e4-5af99e7ea982", "title": "Council Directive 92/14/EEC of 2 March 1992 on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, second edition (1988)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#directive,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "aircraft,civil aviation,noise,noise level,standard", "workIds": "celex:31992L0014,oj:JOL_1992_076_R_0021_010", "eurovoc_concepts": ["aircraft", "civil aviation", "noise", "noise level", "standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/eb79ac9a-123f-4a50-87e4-5af99e7ea982", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9f5393f9-e865-4c04-9ce3-b6b1ea484af0", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 405/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Commission. A European fund to compensate victims of faulty goods", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "approximation of laws,consumer protection,defective product,fund (EU),indemnification,producer's liability,product quality", "workIds": "celex:91992E000405", "eurovoc_concepts": ["approximation of laws", "consumer protection", "defective product", "fund (EU)", "indemnification", "producer's liability", "product quality"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9f5393f9-e865-4c04-9ce3-b6b1ea484af0", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/296ae7c7-8d8e-4fd3-82aa-d3bdb23ebbef", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 448/92 by Mr Stephen HUGHES to the Commission. Tourism restriction", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,HUGHES STEPHEN", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European Commission,child,proposal (EU),safety standard,tourism", "workIds": "celex:91992E000448", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Commission", "child", "proposal (EU)", "safety standard", "tourism"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/296ae7c7-8d8e-4fd3-82aa-d3bdb23ebbef", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fcbccb97-2de8-4662-b4b2-eb1a48167701", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 435/92 by Mr Gianfranco AMENDOLA and Mr Virginio BETTINI to the Commission. Dolphin deaths caused by industrial waste in the sea", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "AMENDOLA,BETTINI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "animal disease,dumping of waste,epidemic,industrial waste,marine mammal,marine pollution", "workIds": "celex:91992E000435", "eurovoc_concepts": ["animal disease", "dumping of waste", "epidemic", "industrial waste", "marine mammal", "marine pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/fcbccb97-2de8-4662-b4b2-eb1a48167701", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0215d1f2-1c93-4fed-8ee0-35c1540c1a20", "title": "92/176/EEC: Commission Decision of 2 March 1992 concerning maps to be provided for use for the Animo network", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EU financing,information network,live animal,veterinary inspection", "workIds": "celex:31992D0176,oj:JOL_1992_080_R_0033_007", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU financing", "information network", "live animal", "veterinary inspection"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0215d1f2-1c93-4fed-8ee0-35c1540c1a20", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/52e50677-c30b-4614-a333-ec6006ac3540", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 425/92 by Mr Alex SMITH to the Commission. Recycling", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SMITH ALEX", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "market protection,recycling technology,research report,technical standard,waste recycling", "workIds": "celex:91992E000425", "eurovoc_concepts": ["market protection", "recycling technology", "research report", "technical standard", "waste recycling"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/52e50677-c30b-4614-a333-ec6006ac3540", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b6420f9d-d5d7-49a7-9e90-7bb52f5b962b", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 421/92 by Mrs Brigitte ERNST de la GRAETE to the Commission. BST -import and marketing of treated meat in Europe", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ERNST DE LA GRAETE,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European Commission,beef,hormone,import restriction,proposal (EU),research report", "workIds": "celex:91992E000421", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Commission", "beef", "hormone", "import restriction", "proposal (EU)", "research report"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b6420f9d-d5d7-49a7-9e90-7bb52f5b962b", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/69c6629c-8d75-4050-aa4a-0d44a2cb66d6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 408/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Council. The discriminatory effect of national military service", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "anti-discriminatory measure,approximation of laws,competence of the Member States,competition,free movement of workers,job application,national service", "workIds": "celex:91992E000408", "eurovoc_concepts": ["anti-discriminatory measure", "approximation of laws", "competence of the Member States", "competition", "free movement of workers", "job application", "national service"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/69c6629c-8d75-4050-aa4a-0d44a2cb66d6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/da58e798-8b12-464a-bd0a-c2dc9f9930f6", "title": "Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and COST third States on 11 concerted action projects in the field of food science and technology (Specific research and technological development programme ' Flair' ) #", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_international,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_non-member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Economic Community", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "COST,cooperation agreement,food chemistry,research and development,scientific cooperation", "workIds": "celex:21992A0331(02),oj:JOL_1992_085_R_0039_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["COST", "cooperation agreement", "food chemistry", "research and development", "scientific cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/da58e798-8b12-464a-bd0a-c2dc9f9930f6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dc20a009-25b4-4ab3-b874-7952e4848243", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 432/92 by Mr Kenneth STEWART to the Commission. Environmental pollution due to chemical leaks", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,STEWART KENNETH", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "North West (England),chemical industry,chemical pollution,environmental impact,gas,toxic substance", "workIds": "celex:91992E000432", "eurovoc_concepts": ["North West (England)", "chemical industry", "chemical pollution", "environmental impact", "gas", "toxic substance"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dc20a009-25b4-4ab3-b874-7952e4848243", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a85e9d0f-29a2-4b0f-bafa-91fc8fedf9ef", "title": "Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and COST third States on five concerted action projects in the field of biotechnology (Specific research and technological development programme ' Bridge' ) #", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_international,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#agreement_non-member-states,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Economic Community", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "COST,cooperation agreement,research and development,scientific cooperation", "workIds": "celex:21992A0331(01)", "eurovoc_concepts": ["COST", "cooperation agreement", "research and development", "scientific cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/a85e9d0f-29a2-4b0f-bafa-91fc8fedf9ef", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/501a2e78-c829-41ef-9bc2-911372785fce", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 433/92 by Mr Herman VERBEEK to the Commission. Leaks in Eastern European oil and gas pipelines", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VERBEEK", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Central and Eastern Europe,USSR,natural gas,oil pollution,petroleum,pipeline transport,piping,stratospheric pollution,technical cooperation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000433", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Central and Eastern Europe", "USSR", "natural gas", "oil pollution", "petroleum", "pipeline transport", "piping", "stratospheric pollution", "technical cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/501a2e78-c829-41ef-9bc2-911372785fce", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3895167c-78df-4abc-9f73-1270f439d0dc", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 420/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 VALVERDE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. Spain' s failure to comply with Council Directive 88/182/EEC", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VALVERDE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European standard,Spain,application of EU law,approximation of laws,free movement of goods,single market,standardisation,technical regulations", "workIds": "celex:91992E000420", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European standard", "Spain", "application of EU law", "approximation of laws", "free movement of goods", "single market", "standardisation", "technical regulations"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/3895167c-78df-4abc-9f73-1270f439d0dc", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/71dc8d40-ccb5-4a38-95ff-5180d39c0f0c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 423/92 by Mr Alex SMITH to the Commission. Assistance to carer organizations in the Member States", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SMITH ALEX", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "care of people with disabilities,disabled person,elderly person,home care,human relations,information system,paramedical profession,social integration", "workIds": "celex:91992E000423", "eurovoc_concepts": ["care of people with disabilities", "disabled person", "elderly person", "home care", "human relations", "information system", "paramedical profession", "social integration"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/71dc8d40-ccb5-4a38-95ff-5180d39c0f0c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e99eedfb-6a8d-4712-a485-6b8b40c15669", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 403/92 by Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Dubious use of the European logo", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Denmark,advertising,educational institution", "workIds": "celex:91992E000403", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Denmark", "advertising", "educational institution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e99eedfb-6a8d-4712-a485-6b8b40c15669", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/60a6aecf-768f-4b1a-9659-25fbc161b52a", "title": "92/182/EEC: Council Decision of 2 March 1992 concerning the conclusion of a Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and COST third States on 11 concerted action projects in the field of food science and technology (Specific research and technological development programme ' Flair' )", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#decision,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "COST,cooperation agreement,food chemistry,research and development,scientific cooperation", "workIds": "celex:31992D0182,oj:JOL_1992_085_R_0038_01", "eurovoc_concepts": ["COST", "cooperation agreement", "food chemistry", "research and development", "scientific cooperation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/60a6aecf-768f-4b1a-9659-25fbc161b52a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1697327-e4c7-4e46-98b3-7231ebce10e7", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 552/92 of 2 March 1992 amending the list annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 55/87 establishing the list of vessels exceeding eight metres length overall permitted to use beam trawls within certain areas of the Community", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EU waters,conservation of fish stocks,fishing net,fishing regulations,fishing vessel,technical standard", "workIds": "celex:31992R0552,oj:JOL_1992_060_R_0006_017", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU waters", "conservation of fish stocks", "fishing net", "fishing regulations", "fishing vessel", "technical standard"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/c1697327-e4c7-4e46-98b3-7231ebce10e7", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/27c15896-fc00-4143-b0f8-c51254e8278d", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 571/92 of 2 March 1992 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European official,pension scheme,regulations for civil servants,transfer of pension rights", "workIds": "celex:31992R0571,oj:JOL_1992_062_R_0001_026", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European official", "pension scheme", "regulations for civil servants", "transfer of pension rights"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/27c15896-fc00-4143-b0f8-c51254e8278d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/afb688b7-0ce6-4b3c-a6d7-6c0b16c47d78", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 427/92 by Mr Alex SMITH to the Commission. Radioactive waste", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SMITH ALEX", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "nuclear fuel,radiation protection,radioactive materials,radioactive waste,report,storage,transport of dangerous goods", "workIds": "celex:91992E000427", "eurovoc_concepts": ["nuclear fuel", "radiation protection", "radioactive materials", "radioactive waste", "report", "storage", "transport of dangerous goods"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/afb688b7-0ce6-4b3c-a6d7-6c0b16c47d78", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/07378025-071e-47c7-bc2e-cb0371bf1e89", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 444/92 by Mr Alonso PUERTA to the Commission. Establishment of a power station at Puertollano (Ciudad Real, Spain)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PUERTA", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Castile-La Mancha,EU aid,air quality,anhydride,environmental impact,environmental protection,impact study,industrial hazard,industrial pollution,power plant", "workIds": "celex:91992E000444", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Castile-La Mancha", "EU aid", "air quality", "anhydride", "environmental impact", "environmental protection", "impact study", "industrial hazard", "industrial pollution", "power plant"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/07378025-071e-47c7-bc2e-cb0371bf1e89", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9eafaea5-2c94-4176-af9b-3b70f6798b60", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/92 of 2 March 1992 extending Regulation (EEC) No 3270/91 making imports of Atlantic salmon subject to observance of a minimum price", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "guaranteed price,minimum price,sea fish", "workIds": "celex:31992R0536,oj:JOL_1992_058_R_0024_030", "eurovoc_concepts": ["guaranteed price", "minimum price", "sea fish"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/9eafaea5-2c94-4176-af9b-3b70f6798b60", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ea471ce2-5595-49b4-8d24-30b970ac3b94", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 429/92 by Mr Ian WHITE to the Commission. Trade debt", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,WHITE", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European undertaking,common commercial policy,competitiveness,financial solvency,health expenditure,payment,public debt,single market", "workIds": "celex:91992E000429", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European undertaking", "common commercial policy", "competitiveness", "financial solvency", "health expenditure", "payment", "public debt", "single market"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/ea471ce2-5595-49b4-8d24-30b970ac3b94", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b25ba44e-bc7f-48b9-b9ba-42930d549700", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 424/92 by Mr Alex SMITH to the Commission. Environmental protection", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SMITH ALEX", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EU policy,air quality,environmental policy,environmental protection,soil pollution,transfrontier pollution,water pollution", "workIds": "celex:91992E000424", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU policy", "air quality", "environmental policy", "environmental protection", "soil pollution", "transfrontier pollution", "water pollution"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b25ba44e-bc7f-48b9-b9ba-42930d549700", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f36b187d-5134-4582-8671-8956b2d81d3c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 443/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Council. Amendment of the directive on the protection of pregnant workers", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Council of the European Union,EC Directive,care of mothers and infants,female work,health policy,motherhood,social security", "workIds": "celex:91992E000443", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Council of the European Union", "EC Directive", "care of mothers and infants", "female work", "health policy", "motherhood", "social security"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f36b187d-5134-4582-8671-8956b2d81d3c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b86b419b-2382-40a3-b58e-8704f8839cb9", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 447/92 by Mr James NICHOLSON to the Commission. Measures to help customs officials", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,NICHOLSON", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European Social Fund,competence of the Member States,customs,job cuts,reintegration into working life,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:91992E000447", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Social Fund", "competence of the Member States", "customs", "job cuts", "reintegration into working life", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b86b419b-2382-40a3-b58e-8704f8839cb9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b8b3a003-94e2-4230-85e6-609d6683af1a", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 416/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 VALVERDE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. Information on the programmes carried out under the structural funds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VALVERDE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European Regional Development Fund,Structural Funds,access to information,project management", "workIds": "celex:91992E000416", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Regional Development Fund", "Structural Funds", "access to information", "project management"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b8b3a003-94e2-4230-85e6-609d6683af1a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6aea822c-a5bb-4893-a6d3-1fd2cfd6a757", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 445/92 by Mr Karmelo LANDA MENDIBE to the Commission. Recognition of qualifications", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,LANDA-MENDIBE", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Spain,application of EU law,doctor,freedom to provide services,recognition of diplomas,right of establishment,vocational training", "workIds": "celex:91992E000445", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Spain", "application of EU law", "doctor", "freedom to provide services", "recognition of diplomas", "right of establishment", "vocational training"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/6aea822c-a5bb-4893-a6d3-1fd2cfd6a757", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/73de9ee8-93fb-4c58-9423-3a687b83a1c6", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 437/92 by Mr Virginio BETTINI and Mr Gianfranco AMENDOLA to the Commission. Public health and environmental hazard caused by the projected siting of a municipal waste dump at Buscate (Milan)", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "AMENDOLA,BETTINI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Lombardy,environmental impact,impact study,town-planning scheme,waste disposal,waste management", "workIds": "celex:91992E000437", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Lombardy", "environmental impact", "impact study", "town-planning scheme", "waste disposal", "waste management"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/73de9ee8-93fb-4c58-9423-3a687b83a1c6", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8cf795a1-a50d-4f01-9fcd-84db33ced959", "title": "Council Regulation (EEC) No 601/92 of 2 March 1992 on the introduction of a prior surveillance system for imports of certain textile products originating in Albania, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "fmx4,html,pdfa1b,print,xhtml", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "Council of the European Union", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Albania,Baltic States,certificate of origin,import,market supervision,textile product", "workIds": "celex:31992R0601,oj:JOL_1992_065_R_0001_016", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Albania", "Baltic States", "certificate of origin", "import", "market supervision", "textile product"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/8cf795a1-a50d-4f01-9fcd-84db33ced959", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["fmx4", "html", "pdfa1b", "print", "xhtml"], "text": "L_1992065EN. 01000101. xml\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n11. 3. 1992\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\nEN\n\n\nOfficial Journal of the European Communities\n\n\nL 65/1\n\n\n\n\n\nCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 601/92\nof 2 March 1992\non the introduction of a prior surveillance system for imports of certain textile products originating in Albania, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Lithuania\nTHE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,\nHaving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof,\nHaving regard to the proposal from the Commission,\nWhereas the Community and its Member States, at an extraordinary ministerial meeting held in the framework of European Political Cooperation in Brussels on 27 August 1991, confirmed their decision to establish diplomatic relations with the Republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as the \u2018Baltic republics\u2019) and emphasized their commitment to offer support for these States' economic and political development; whereas the provisions of the Agreement between the Community and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on trade in textile products, concluded on 3 June 1991\u00a0(1), is therefore no longer applicable to textile products originating in these three countries;\nWhereas, in accordance with the Council Mandate of 23 September 1991, concerning the negotiation of an Agreement on trade and cooperation between the Community and Albania, the Community also expects to finalize an Agreement on trade in textile products with that country;\nWhereas, pending the conclusion of bilateral agreements on trade in textile products with Albania and the Baltic republics, provision should be made for prior Community surveillance of imports of certain such products, including those subject to economic outward processing operations; whereas, in this case, release for free circulation of the products in question should be subject to presentation of a standardized import document; whereas this document must be issued by the authorities of the Member States within a certain time limit following a declaration or simple request of the importer; whereas this import document may be used only pending a change in the import arrangements;\nWhereas the system of prior surveillance provided for by this Regulation does not affect the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/82 of 30 June 1982 on common rules for imports from State-trading countries\u00a0(2) nor of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3420/83 of 14 November 1983 on import arrangements for products originating in State-trading countries, not liberalized at Community level\u00a0(3);\nWhereas determination of the origin of textile products imported from these countries under these arrangements and the origin control procedures must comply with the relevant Community rules in force;\nWhereas it is in the Community's interest to ensure the fullest possible exchange of information between the Member States and the Commission on the results of Community surveillance,\nHAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:\nArticle 1\n1. This Regulation shall apply to imports of products mentioned in Article 2 originating in Albania and in the Baltic republics. 2. For the purposes of this Regulation, an \u2018originating product\u2019 shall be as defined by the relevant Community rules in force. The origin of these products must be established by a certificate of origin issued by the competent authorities of Albania and of the Baltic republics, as the case may be, or by other forms of evidence authorized by the relevant Community rules. Article 2\n1. Imports of products listed in Annex I to this Regulation shall be subject to prior Community surveillance carried out in accordance with the procedures set out in Article 3. 2. Paragraph 1 shall also apply to the products listed in Annex II that have been subject to outward processing operations in accordance with the relevant Community rules in force. Article 3\n1. The release for free circulation of products under Community surveillance shall be subject to presentation of an import document. This document shall be issued by the Member States, free of charge, for all quantities requested no later than five working days after the lodging of a simple request by any Community importer in accordance with the national legislation in force, wherever he may be established in the Community. 2. The importer's request must indicate:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(a)\n\n\nthe name and address of the importer;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(b)\n\n\na description of the product, with reference to:\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nthe CN codes,\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u2014\n\n\nthe country of origin;\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n(c)\n\n\nthe expected date(s) and place(s) of delivery. 3. For products subject to surveillance as provided for in Article 2, the Member States shall notify the Commission within the first 10 days of each month of the quantities and values for which import documents have been issued in the preceding month. This information from the Member States shall be broken down by category of product and by country. 4. Where the nature of the products or particular circumstances so require, the Commission may, at the request of a Member State or on its own initiative, adjust the frequency with which information must be notified. 5. Where necessary, the Commission shall notify the Member States of trends in imports into the Community of products listed in Annex I. Article 4\nThis Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 2 March 1992. For the Council\n\n\nThe President\n\nJo\u0101o PINHEIRO\n\n\n\n\n(1)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 164, 26. 6. 1991, p. 1. (2)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 195, 5. 7. 1982, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1243/86 (OJ No L 113, 30. 4. 1986, p. 1). (3)\u00a0\u00a0OJ No L 346, 8. 12. 1983, p. 6. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3859/91 (OJ No L 362, 31. 12. 1991, p. 83). ANNEX I\nPRODUCTS SUBMITTED TO PRIOR COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nGROUP I A\n\n\n\n\n\nCategory No\n\n\nCN code\n\n\nDescription\n\n\n\n\n(1)\n\n\n(2)\n\n\n(3)\n\n\n\n\n1\n\n\n5204\u00a011\u00a000\n5204\u00a019\u00a000\n\n\nCotton yarn, not put up for retail sale\n\n\n\n\n5205\u00a011\u00a000\n5205\u00a012\u00a000\n5205\u00a013\u00a000\n5205\u00a014\u00a000\n5205\u00a015\u00a010\n5205\u00a015\u00a090\n5205\u00a021\u00a000\n5205\u00a022\u00a000\n5205\u00a023\u00a000\n5205\u00a024\u00a000\n5205\u00a025\u00a010\n5205\u00a025\u00a030\n5205\u00a025\u00a090\n5205\u00a031\u00a000\n5205\u00a032\u00a000\n5205\u00a033\u00a000\n5205\u00a034\u00a000\n5205\u00a035\u00a010\n5205\u00a035\u00a090\n5205\u00a041\u00a000\n5205\u00a042\u00a000\n5205\u00a043\u00a000\n5205\u00a044\u00a000\n5205\u00a045\u00a010\n5205\u00a045\u00a030\n5205\u00a045\u00a090\n\n\n\n\n5206\u00a011\u00a000\n5206\u00a012\u00a000\n5206\u00a013\u00a000\n5206\u00a014\u00a000\n5206\u00a015\u00a010\n5206\u00a015\u00a090\n5206\u00a021\u00a000\n5206\u00a022\u00a000\n5206\u00a023\u00a000\n5206\u00a024\u00a000\n5206\u00a025\u00a010\n5206\u00a025\u00a090\n5206\u00a031\u00a000\n5206\u00a032\u00a000\n5206\u00a033\u00a000\n5206\u00a034\u00a000\n5206\u00a035\u00a010\n5206\u00a035\u00a090\n5206\u00a041\u00a000\n5206\u00a042\u00a000\n5206\u00a043\u00a000\n5206\u00a044\u00a000\n5206\u00a045\u00a010\n5206\u00a045\u00a090\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a05604\u00a090\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n2\n\n\n5208\u00a011\u00a010\n5208\u00a011\u00a090\n5208\u00a012\u00a011\n5208\u00a012\u00a013\n5208\u00a012\u00a015\n5208\u00a012\u00a019\n5208\u00a012\u00a091\n5208\u00a012\u00a093\n5208\u00a012\u00a095\n5208\u00a012\u00a099\n5208\u00a013\u00a000\n5208\u00a019\u00a000\n5208\u00a021\u00a010\n5208\u00a021\u00a090\n5208\u00a022\u00a011\n5208\u00a022\u00a013\n5208\u00a022\u00a015\n5208\u00a022\u00a019\n5208\u00a022\u00a091\n5208\u00a022\u00a093\n5208\u00a022\u00a095\n5208\u00a022\u00a099\n5208\u00a023\u00a000\n5208\u00a029\u00a000\n5208\u00a031\u00a000\n5208\u00a032\u00a011\n5208\u00a032\u00a013\n5208\u00a032\u00a015\n5208\u00a032\u00a019\n5208\u00a032\u00a091\n5208\u00a032\u00a093\n5208\u00a032\u00a095\n5208\u00a032\u00a099\n5208\u00a033\u00a000\n5208\u00a039\u00a000\n5208\u00a041\u00a000\n5208\u00a042\u00a000\n5208\u00a043\u00a000\n5208\u00a049\u00a000\n5208\u00a051\u00a000\n5208\u00a052\u00a010\n5208\u00a052\u00a090\n5208\u00a053\u00a000\n5208\u00a059\u00a000\n\n\nWoven fabrics of cotton, other than gauze, terry fabrics narrow woven fabrics, pile fabrics, chenille fabrics, tulle and other net fabrics:\n\n\n\n\n5209\u00a011\u00a000\n5209\u00a012\u00a000\n5209\u00a019\u00a000\n5209\u00a021\u00a000\n5209\u00a022\u00a000\n5209\u00a029\u00a000\n5209\u00a031\u00a000\n5209\u00a032\u00a000\n5209\u00a039\u00a000\n5209\u00a041\u00a000\n5209\u00a042\u00a000\n5209\u00a043\u00a000\n5209\u00a049\u00a010\n5209\u00a049\u00a090\n5209\u00a051\u00a000\n5209\u00a052\u00a000\n5209\u00a059\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n5210\u00a011\u00a010\n5210\u00a011\u00a090\n5210\u00a012\u00a000\n5210\u00a019\u00a000\n5210\u00a021\u00a010\n5210\u00a021\u00a090\n5210\u00a022\u00a000\n5210\u00a029\u00a000\n5210\u00a031\u00a010\n5210\u00a031\u00a090\n5210\u00a032\u00a000\n5210\u00a039\u00a000\n5210\u00a041\u00a000\n5210\u00a042\u00a000\n5210\u00a049\u00a000\n5210\u00a051\u00a000\n5210\u00a052\u00a000\n5210\u00a059\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n5211\u00a011\u00a000\n5211\u00a012\u00a000\n5211\u00a019\u00a000\n5211\u00a021\u00a000\n5211\u00a022\u00a000\n5211\u00a029\u00a000\n5211\u00a031\u00a000\n5211\u00a032\u00a000\n5211\u00a039\u00a000\n5211\u00a041\u00a000\n5211\u00a042\u00a000\n5211\u00a043\u00a000\n5211\u00a049\u00a011\n5211\u00a049\u00a019\n5211\u00a049\u00a090\n5211\u00a051\u00a000\n5211\u00a052\u00a000\n5211\u00a059\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n5212\u00a011\u00a010\n5212\u00a011\u00a090\n5212\u00a012\u00a010\n5212\u00a012\u00a090\n5212\u00a013\u00a010\n5212\u00a013\u00a090\n5212\u00a014\u00a010\n5212\u00a014\u00a090\n5212\u00a015\u00a010\n5212\u00a015\u00a090\n5212\u00a021\u00a010\n5212\u00a021\u00a090\n5212\u00a022\u00a010\n5212\u00a022\u00a090\n5212\u00a023\u00a010\n5212\u00a023\u00a090\n5212\u00a024\u00a010\n5212\u00a024\u00a090\n5212\u00a025\u00a010\n5212\u00a025\u00a090\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a05811\u00a000\u00a000\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a06308\u00a000\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n2(a)\n\n\n5208\u00a031\u00a000\n5208\u00a032\u00a011\n5208\u00a032\u00a013\n5208\u00a032\u00a015\n5208\u00a032\u00a019\n5208\u00a032\u00a091\n5208\u00a032\u00a093\n5208\u00a032\u00a095\n5208\u00a032\u00a099\n5208\u00a033\u00a000\n5208\u00a039\u00a000\n5208\u00a041\u00a000\n5208\u00a042\u00a000\n5208\u00a043\u00a000\n5208\u00a049\u00a000\n5208\u00a051\u00a000\n5208\u00a052\u00a010\n5208\u00a052\u00a090\n5208\u00a053\u00a000\n5208\u00a059\u00a000\n\n\n(a) Of which: Other than unbleached or bleached\n\n\n\n\n5209\u00a031\u00a000\n5209\u00a032\u00a000\n5209\u00a039\u00a000\n5209\u00a041\u00a000\n5209\u00a042\u00a000\n5209\u00a043\u00a000\n5209\u00a049\u00a010\n5209\u00a049\u00a090\n5209\u00a051\u00a000\n5209\u00a052\u00a000\n5209\u00a059\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n5210\u00a031\u00a010\n5210\u00a031\u00a090\n5210\u00a032\u00a000\n5210\u00a039\u00a000\n5210\u00a041\u00a000\n5210\u00a042\u00a000\n5210\u00a049\u00a000\n5210\u00a051\u00a000\n5210\u00a052\u00a000\n5210\u00a059\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n5211\u00a031\u00a000\n5211\u00a032\u00a000\n5211\u00a039\u00a000\n5211\u00a041\u00a000\n5211\u00a042\u00a000\n5211\u00a043\u00a000\n5211\u00a049\u00a011\n5211\u00a049\u00a019\n5211\u00a049\u00a090\n5211\u00a051\u00a000\n5211\u00a052\u00a000\n5211\u00a059\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n5212\u00a013\u00a010\n5212\u00a013\u00a090\n5212\u00a014\u00a010\n5212\u00a014\u00a090\n5212\u00a015\u00a010\n5212\u00a015\u00a090\n5212\u00a023\u00a010\n5212\u00a023\u00a090\n5212\u00a024\u00a010\n5212\u00a024\u00a090\n5212\u00a025\u00a010\n5212\u00a025\u00a090\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a05811\u00a000\u00a000\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a06308\u00a000\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n3\n\n\n5512\u00a011\u00a000\n5512\u00a019\u00a010\n5512\u00a019\u00a090\n5512\u00a021\u00a000\n5512\u00a029\u00a010\n5512\u00a029\u00a090\n5512\u00a091\u00a000\n5512\u00a099\u00a010\n5512\u00a099\u00a090\n\n\nWoven fabrics of synthetic fibres (discontinuous or waste) other than narrow woven fabrics, pile fabrics (including terry fabrics) and chenille fabrics:\n\n\n\n\n5513\u00a011\u00a010\n5513\u00a011\u00a030\n5513\u00a011\u00a090\n5513\u00a012\u00a000\n5513\u00a013\u00a000\n5513\u00a019\u00a000\n5513\u00a021\u00a010\n5513\u00a021\u00a030\n5513\u00a021\u00a090\n5213\u00a022\u00a000\n5513\u00a023\u00a000\n5513\u00a029\u00a000\n5513\u00a031\u00a000\n5513\u00a032\u00a000\n5513\u00a033\u00a000\n5513\u00a039\u00a000\n5513\u00a041\u00a000\n5513\u00a042\u00a000\n5513\u00a043\u00a000\n5513\u00a049\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n5514\u00a011\u00a000\n5514\u00a012\u00a000\n5514\u00a013\u00a000\n5514\u00a019\u00a000\n5514\u00a021\u00a000\n5514\u00a022\u00a000\n5514\u00a023\u00a000\n5514\u00a029\u00a000\n5514\u00a031\u00a000\n5514\u00a032\u00a000\n5514\u00a033\u00a000\n5514\u00a039\u00a000\n5514\u00a041\u00a000\n5514\u00a042\u00a000\n5514\u00a043\u00a000\n5514\u00a049\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n5515\u00a011\u00a010\n5515\u00a011\u00a030\n5515\u00a011\u00a090\n5515\u00a012\u00a010\n5515\u00a012\u00a030\n5515\u00a012\u00a090\n5515\u00a013\u00a011\n5515\u00a013\u00a019\n5515\u00a013\u00a091\n5515\u00a013\u00a099\n5515\u00a019\u00a010\n5515\u00a019\u00a030\n5515\u00a019\u00a090\n5515\u00a021\u00a010\n5515\u00a021\u00a030\n5515\u00a021\u00a090\n5515\u00a022\u00a011\n5515\u00a022\u00a019\n5515\u00a022\u00a091\n5515\u00a022\u00a099\n5515\u00a029\u00a010\n5515\u00a029\u00a030\n5515\u00a029\u00a090\n5515\u00a091\u00a010\n5515\u00a091\u00a030\n5515\u00a091\u00a090\n5515\u00a092\u00a011\n5515\u00a092\u00a019\n5515\u00a092\u00a091\n5515\u00a092\u00a099\n5515\u00a099\u00a010\n5515\u00a099\u00a030\n5515\u00a099\u00a090\n\n\n\n\n5803\u00a090\u00a030\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a05905\u00a000\u00a070\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a06308\u00a000\u00a000\n\n\n\n\nGROUP I B\n\n\n\n\n4\n\n\n6105\u00a010\u00a000\n6105\u00a020\u00a010\n6105\u00a020\u00a090\n6105\u00a090\u00a010\n\n\nShirts, T-shirts, lightweight fine-knit roll, polo or turtle-necked jumpers and pullovers (other than of wool or fine animal hair), undervests and the like, knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n6109\u00a010\u00a000\n6109\u00a090\u00a010\n6109\u00a090\u00a030\n\n\n\n\n6110\u00a020\u00a010\n6110\u00a030\u00a010\n\n\n\n\n5\n\n\n6101\u00a010\u00a090\n6101\u00a020\u00a090\n6101\u00a030\u00a090\n\n\nJerseys, pullovers, slip-overs, waistcoats, twinsets, cardigans, bed-jackets and jumpers (other than jackets and blazers), anoraks, windcheaters, waister jackets and the like, knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n6102\u00a010\u00a090\n6102\u00a020\u00a090\n6102\u00a030\u00a090\n\n\n\n\n6110\u00a010\u00a010\n6110\u00a010\u00a031\n6110\u00a010\u00a039\n6110\u00a010\u00a091\n6110\u00a010\u00a099\n6110\u00a020\u00a091\n6110\u00a020\u00a099\n6110\u00a030\u00a091\n6110\u00a030\u00a099\n\n\n\n\n6\n\n\n6203\u00a041\u00a010\n6203\u00a041\u00a090\n6203\u00a042\u00a031\n6203\u00a042\u00a033\n6203\u00a042\u00a035\n6203\u00a042\u00a090\n6203\u00a043\u00a019\n6203\u00a043\u00a090\n6203\u00a049\u00a019\n6203\u00a049\u00a050\n\n\nMen's or boys' woven breeches, shorts other than swimwear and trousers (including slacks); womens' or girls' woven trousers and slacks, of wool, of cotton or of man-made fibres\n\n\n\n\n6204\u00a061\u00a010\n6204\u00a062\u00a031\n6204\u00a062\u00a033\n6204\u00a062\u00a039\n6204\u00a063\u00a018\n6204\u00a069\u00a018\n\n\n\n\n6211\u00a032\u00a042\n6211\u00a033\u00a042\n6211\u00a042\u00a042\n6211\u00a043\u00a042\n\n\nBottom halves of tracksuits with linings, other than those of category 16 or 29, of cotton or man-made fibres\n\n\n\n\n7\n\n\n6106\u00a010\u00a000\n6106\u00a020\u00a000\n6106\u00a090\u00a010\n\n\nWomen's or girls' blouses, shirts and shirt-blouses, whether or not knitted or crocheted, of wool, cotton or man-made fibres\n\n\n\n\n6206\u00a020\u00a000\n6206\u00a030\u00a000\n6206\u00a040\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n8\n\n\n6205\u00a010\u00a000\n6205\u00a020\u00a000\n6205\u00a030\u00a000\n\n\nMen's or boys' shirts, other than knitted or crocheted, of wool, cotton or man-made fibres\n\n\n\n\nGROUP II A\n\n\n\n\n20\n\n\n6302\u00a021\u00a000\n6302\u00a022\u00a090\n6302\u00a029\u00a090\n6302\u00a031\u00a010\n6302\u00a031\u00a090\n6302\u00a032\u00a090\n6302\u00a039\u00a090\n\n\nBed linen, other than knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n\nGROUP II B\n\n\n\n\n\n21\n\n\nex\u00a06201\u00a012\u00a010\nex\u00a06201\u00a012\u00a090\nex\u00a06201\u00a013\u00a010\nex\u00a06201\u00a013\u00a090\n6201\u00a091\u00a000\n6201\u00a092\u00a000\n6201\u00a093\u00a000\n\n\nParkas; anoraks, windcheaters, waister jackets and the like, other than knitted or crocheted, of wool, of cotton or man-made fibres\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a06202\u00a012\u00a010\nex\u00a06202\u00a012\u00a090\nex\u00a06202\u00a013\u00a010\nex\u00a06202\u00a013\u00a090\n6202\u00a091\u00a000\n6202\u00a092\u00a000\n6202\u00a093\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n6211\u00a032\u00a041\n6211\u00a033\u00a041\n6211\u00a042\u00a041\n6211\u00a043\u00a041\n\n\nTop halves of tracksuits with linings, other than those of category 16 or 29, of cotton or man-made fibres\n\n\n\n\nGROUP II A\n\n\n\n\n9\n\n\n5802\u00a011\u00a000\n5802\u00a019\u00a000\n\n\nTerry towelling and similar woven terry fabrics of cotton; toilet linen and kitchen linen, other than knitted or crocheted, of terry towelling and woven terry fabrics, of cotton\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a06302\u00a060\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n22\n\n\n5508\u00a010\u00a011\n5508\u00a010\u00a019\n\n\nYarn of staple or waste synthetic fibres, not put up for retail sale\n\n\n\n\n\n5509\u00a011\u00a000\n5509\u00a012\u00a000\n5509\u00a021\u00a010\n5509\u00a021\u00a090\n5509\u00a022\u00a010\n5509\u00a022\u00a090\n5509\u00a031\u00a010\n5509\u00a031\u00a090\n5509\u00a032\u00a010\n5509\u00a032\u00a090\n5509\u00a041\u00a010\n5509\u00a041\u00a090\n5509\u00a042\u00a010\n5509\u00a042\u00a090\n5509\u00a051\u00a000\n5509\u00a052\u00a010\n5509\u00a052\u00a090\n5509\u00a053\u00a000\n5509\u00a059\u00a000\n5509\u00a061\u00a010\n5509\u00a061\u00a090\n5509\u00a062\u00a000\n5509\u00a069\u00a000\n5509\u00a091\u00a010\n5509\u00a091\u00a090\n5509\u00a092\u00a000\n5509\u00a099\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n23\n\n\n5508\u00a020\u00a010\n\n\nYarn of staple or waste artificial fibres, not put up for retail sale\n\n\n\n\n5510\u00a011\u00a000\n5510\u00a020\u00a000\n5510\u00a030\u00a000\n5510\u00a090\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n39\n\n\n6302\u00a051\u00a010\n6302\u00a051\u00a090\n6302\u00a053\u00a090\nex\u00a06302\u00a059\u00a000\n6302\u00a091\u00a010\n6302\u00a091\u00a090\n6302\u00a093\u00a090\nex\u00a06302\u00a099\u00a000\n\n\nTable linen, toilet and kitchen linen, other than knitted or crocheted, other than of terry towelling or similar terry fabrics of cotton\n\n\n\n\nGROUPE II B\n\n\n\n\n12\n\n\n6115\u00a012\u00a000\n6115\u00a019\u00a010\n6115\u00a019\u00a090\n6115\u00a020\u00a011\n6115\u00a020\u00a090\n6115\u00a091\u00a000\n6115\u00a092\u00a000\n6115\u00a093\u00a010\n6115\u00a093\u00a030\n6115\u00a093\u00a099\n6115\u00a099\u00a000\n\n\nPanty-hose and tights, stockings, understockings, socks, ankle-socks, sockettes and the like, knitted or crocheted, other than for babies, including stockings for varicose veins, other than products of category 70\n\n\n\n\n13\n\n\n6107\u00a011\u00a000\n6107\u00a012\u00a000\n6107\u00a019\u00a000\n\n\nMen's or boys' underpants and briefs, women's or girls' knickers and briefs, knitted or crocheted, of wool, cotton or man-made fibres\n\n\n\n\n6108\u00a021\u00a000\n6108\u00a022\u00a000\n6108\u00a029\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n15\n\n\n6202\u00a011\u00a000\nex\u00a06202\u00a012\u00a010\nex\u00a06202\u00a012\u00a090\nex\u00a06202\u00a013\u00a010\n6202\u00a013\u00a090\n\n\nWomen's or girls' woven overcoats, raincoats and other coats, cloaks and capes; jackets and blazers, of wool, of cotton or of man-made textile fibres (other than parkas) (of category 21)\n\n\n\n\n6204\u00a031\u00a000\n6204\u00a032\u00a090\n6204\u00a033\u00a090\n6204\u00a039\u00a019\n\n\n\n\n6210\u00a030\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n16\n\n\n6203\u00a011\u00a000\n6203\u00a012\u00a000\n6203\u00a019\u00a010\n6203\u00a019\u00a030\n6203\u00a021\u00a000\n6203\u00a022\u00a080\n6203\u00a023\u00a080\n6203\u00a029\u00a018\n\n\nMen's or boys' suits and ensembles, other than knitted or crocheted of wool of cotton or of man-made fibres, excluding ski suits\n\n\n\n\n6211\u00a032\u00a031\n6211\u00a033\u00a031\n\n\nMen's or boys' tracksuits with linings, the exterior of which is made from one and the same material, of cotton or of man-made fibres\n\n\n\n\n24\n\n\n6107\u00a021\u00a000\n6107\u00a022\u00a000\n6107\u00a029\u00a000\n6107\u00a091\u00a000\n610792100\nex\u00a06107\u00a099\u00a010\n\n\nMen's or boys' nightshirts, pyjamas, n\u00e9glig\u00e9s, bathrobes, dressing gowns and similar articles, knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n6108\u00a031\u00a010\n6108\u00a031\u00a090\n6108\u00a032\u00a011\n6108\u00a032\u00a019\n6108\u00a032\u00a090\n6108\u00a039\u00a000\n6108\u00a091\u00a000\n6108\u00a092\u00a000\n6108\u00a099\u00a010\n\n\nWomen's or girls' nightdresses, pyjamas, n\u00e9glig\u00e9s, bathrobes, dressing growns and similar articles, knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n26/27\n\n\n6104\u00a041\u00a000\n6104\u00a042\u00a000\n6104\u00a043\u00a000\n6104\u00a044\u00a000\n\n\nWomen's or girls' dresses, of wool, of cotton or man-made fibres\n\n\n\n\n6204\u00a041\u00a000\n6204\u00a042\u00a000\n6204\u00a043\u00a000\n6204\u00a044\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n6104\u00a051\u00a000\n6104\u00a052\u00a000\n6104\u00a053\u00a000\n6104\u00a059\u00a000\n\n\nWomen's or girls' skirts, including divided skirts\n\n\n\n\n6204\u00a051\u00a000\n6204\u00a052\u00a000\n6204\u00a053\u00a000\n6204\u00a059\u00a010\n\n\n\n\n29\n\n\n6204\u00a011\u00a000\n6204\u00a012\u00a000\n6204\u00a013\u00a000\n6204\u00a019\u00a010\n6204\u00a021\u00a000\n6204\u00a022\u00a080\n6204\u00a023\u00a080\n6204\u00a029\u00a018\n\n\nWomen's or girls' suits and ensembles, other than knitted or crocheted, of wool, of cotton or man-made fibres, excluding ski suits\n\n\n\n\n6211\u00a042\u00a031\n6211\u00a043\u00a031\n\n\nWomen's or girls' tracksuits with linings, the exterior of which is made from one and the same material, of cotton or of man-made fibres\n\n\n\n\n73\n\n\n6112\u00a011\u00a000\n6112\u00a012\u00a000\n6112\u00a019\u00a000\n\n\nTrack suits of knitted or crocheted fabric, of wool, of cotton or of man-made textile fibres\n\n\n\n\n83\n\n\n6101\u00a010\u00a010\n6101\u00a020\u00a010\n6101\u00a030\u00a010\n\n\nOvercoats, jackets, blazers and other garments, including ski suits, knitted or crocheted, excluding garments of categories 4, 5, 7, 13, 24, 26, 27, 28, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74 and 75\n\n\n\n\n6102\u00a010\u00a010\n6102\u00a020\u00a010\n6102\u00a030\u00a010\n\n\n\n\n6103\u00a031\u00a000\n6103\u00a032\u00a000\n6103\u00a033\u00a000\nex\u00a06103\u00a039\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n6104\u00a031\u00a000\n6104\u00a032\u00a000\n6104\u00a033\u00a000\nex\u00a06104\u00a039\u00a000\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a06112\u00a020\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n6113\u00a000\u00a090\n\n\n\n\n6114\u00a010\u00a000\n6114\u00a020\u00a000\n6114\u00a030\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n\nGROUP III A\n\n\n\n\n\n33\n\n\n5407\u00a020\u00a011\n\n\nWoven fabrics of synthetic filament yam obtained from strip or the like of polyethylene or polypropylene, less than 3 m wide\nSacks and bags, of a kind used for the packing of goods, not knitted or crocheted, obtained from strip or the like\n\n\n\n\n6305\u00a031\u00a091\n6305\u00a031\u00a099\n\n\n\n\n36\n\n\n5408\u00a010\u00a000\n5408\u00a021\u00a000\n5408\u00a022\u00a010\n5408\u00a022\u00a090\n5408\u00a023\u00a010\n5408\u00a023\u00a090\n5408\u00a024\u00a000\n5408\u00a031\u00a000\n5408\u00a032\u00a000\n5408\u00a033\u00a000\n5408\u00a034\u00a000\n\n\nWoven fabrics of continuous artificial fibres, other than those for tyres of category 114\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a05811\u00a000\u00a000\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a05905\u00a000\u00a070\n\n\n\n\n37\n\n\n5516\u00a011\u00a000\n5516\u00a012\u00a000\n5516\u00a013\u00a000\n5516\u00a014\u00a000\n5516\u00a021\u00a000\n5516\u00a022\u00a000\n5516\u00a023\u00a010\n5516\u00a023\u00a090\n5516\u00a024\u00a000\n5516\u00a031\u00a000\n5516\u00a032\u00a000\n5516\u00a033\u00a000\n5516\u00a034\u00a000\n5516\u00a041\u00a000\n5516\u00a042\u00a000\n5516\u00a043\u00a000\n5516\u00a044\u00a000\n5516\u00a091\u00a000\n5516\u00a092\u00a000\n5516\u00a093\u00a000\n5516\u00a094\u00a000\n\n\nWoven fabrics of artificial staple fibres\n\n\n\n\n5803\u00a090\u00a050\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a05950070\n\n\n\n\n50\n\n\n5111\u00a011\u00a000\n5111\u00a019\u00a010\n5111\u00a019\u00a090\n5111\u00a020\u00a000\n5111\u00a030\u00a010\n5111\u00a030\u00a030\n5111\u00a030\u00a090\n5111\u00a090\u00a010\n5111\u00a090\u00a091\n5111\u00a090\u00a093\n5111\u00a090\u00a099\n\n\nWoven fabrics of sheep's or lambs' wool or of fine animal hair\n\n\n\n\n5112\u00a011\u00a000\n5112\u00a019\u00a010\n5112\u00a019\u00a090\n5112\u00a020\u00a000\n5112\u00a030\u00a010\n5112\u00a030\u00a030\n5112\u00a030\u00a090\n5112\u00a090\u00a010\n5112\u00a090\u00a091\n5112\u00a090\u00a093\n5112\u00a090\u00a099\n\n\n\n\nGROUP III B\n\n\n\n\n67\n\n\n5807\u00a090\u00a090\n\n\nKnitted or crocheted clothing accessories other than for babies; household linen of all kinds, knitted or crocheted; curtains (including drapes) and interior blinds, curtain or bed valances and other furnishing articles knitted or crocheted; knitted or crocheted blankets and travelling-rugs, other knitted or crocheted articles including parts of garments or of clothing accessories\n\n\n\n\n6113\u00a000\u00a010\n\n\n\n\n6117\u00a010\u00a000\n6117\u00a020\u00a000\n6117\u00a080\u00a010\n6117\u00a080\u00a090\n6117\u00a090\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n6301\u00a020\u00a010\n6301\u00a030\u00a010\n6301\u00a040\u00a010\n6301\u00a090\u00a010\n\n\n\n\n6302\u00a010\u00a010\n6302\u00a010\u00a090\n6302\u00a040\u00a000\nex\u00a06302\u00a060\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n6303\u00a011\u00a000\n6303\u00a012\u00a000\n6303\u00a019\u00a000\n\n\n\n\n6304\u00a011\u00a000\n6304\u00a091\u00a000\n\n\n\n\nex\u00a06305\u00a020\u00a000\nex\u00a06305\u00a039\u00a000\nex\u00a06305\u00a090\u00a000\n6305\u00a031\u00a010\n\n\n\n\n6307\u00a010\u00a010\n6307\u00a090\u00a010\n\n\n\n\n74\n\n\n6104\u00a011\u00a000\n6104\u00a012\u00a000\n6104\u00a013\u00a000\nex\u00a06104\u00a019\u00a000\n6104\u00a021\u00a000\n6104\u00a022\u00a000\n6104\u00a023\u00a000\nex\u00a06104\u00a029\u00a000\n\n\nWomen's or girls' knitted or crocheted suits and ensembles, of wool, of cotton or man-made fibres, excluding ski suits\n\n\n\n\n90\n\n\n5607\u00a041\u00a000\n5607\u00a049\u00a011\n5607\u00a049\u00a019\n5607\u00a049\u00a090\n5607\u00a050\u00a011\n5607\u00a050\u00a019\n5607\u00a050\u00a030\n5607\u00a050\u00a090\n\n\nTwine, cordage, ropes and cables of synthetic fibres, plaited\n\n\n\n\nGROUP IV\n\n\n\n\n115\n\n\n5306\u00a010\u00a011\n5306\u00a010\u00a019\n5306\u00a010\u00a031\n5306\u00a010\u00a039\n5306\u00a010\u00a050\n5306\u00a010\u00a090\n5306\u00a020\u00a011\n5306\u00a020\u00a019\n5306\u00a020\u00a090\n\n\nFlax or ramie yarn\n\n\n\n\n5308\u00a090\u00a011\n5308\u00a090\u00a013\n5308\u00a090\u00a019\n\n\n\n\n117\n\n\n5309\u00a011\u00a011\n5309\u00a011\u00a019\n5309\u00a011\u00a090\n5309\u00a019\u00a010\n5309\u00a019\u00a090\n5309\u00a021\u00a010\n5309\u00a021\u00a090\n5309\u00a029\u00a010\n5309\u00a029\u00a090\n\n\nWoven fabrics of flax or of ramie\n\n\n\n\n5311\u00a000\u00a010\n\n\n\n\n5803\u00a090\u00a090\n\n\n\n\n5905\u00a000\u00a031\n5905\u00a000\u00a039\n\n\n\n\n118\n\n\n6302\u00a029\u00a010\n6302\u00a039\u00a010\n6302\u00a039\u00a030\n6302\u00a052\u00a000\nex\u00a06302\u00a059\u00a000\n6302\u00a092\u00a000\nex\u00a06302\u00a099\u00a000\n\n\nTable linen, toilet linen and kitchen linen of flax or ramie, other than knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nANNEX II\nPRODUCTS FROM ECONOMIC OUTWARD PROCESSING TRAFFIC AND SUBMITTED TO PRIOR COMMUNITY SURVEILLANCE\n(Article 2 (2))\n(The product descriptions set out in Annex I are repeated in this table in a shortened version)\nA. BALTIC REPUBLICS\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCategory\n\n\n\n\nDescription\n\n\n\n\n\n4\n\n\nShirts, undervests, T-shirts and the like, knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n5\n\n\nJerseys\n\n\n\n\n6\n\n\nWoven breeches\n\n\n\n\n7\n\n\nBlouses\n\n\n\n\n8\n\n\nShirts, other than knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n15\n\n\nWomen's or girls' overcoats, other than knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n21\n\n\nParkas, anoraks and the like, woven\n\n\n\n\n26\n27\n\n\n(Dresses and skirts)\n\n\n\n\n29\n\n\nWomen's suits and ensembles\n\n\n\n\n73\n\n\nTrack suits\n\n\n\n\n74\n\n\nKnitted or crocheted ensembles\n\n\n\n\n83\n\n\nOther knitted or crocheted garments\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nB. ALBANIA\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCategory\n\n\n\n\nDescription\n\n\n\n\n\n4\n\n\nShirts, undervests, T-shirts and the like, knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n5\n\n\nJerseys\n\n\n\n\n6\n\n\nWoven breeches\n\n\n\n\n7\n\n\nBlouses\n\n\n\n\n8\n\n\nShirts, other than knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n12\n\n\nSocks\n\n\n\n\n14\n\n\nMen's overcoats, other than knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n15\n\n\nWomen's overcoats, other than knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n18\n\n\nMen's pyjamas, nightshirts, other than knitted or crocheted\n\n\n\n\n24\n\n\nPyjamas, nightshirts, knitted or crocheted"}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e065a670-7298-4cf8-b5bc-a6380cd54070", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 430/92 by Mr Virg\u00edlio PEREIRA to the Commission. Projects to build or modernize fishing boats submitted by the Autonomous Region of Madeira", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PEREIRA VIRGILI", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EU aid,Madeira,action programme,autonomous community,fishing vessel,shipbuilding", "workIds": "celex:91992E000430", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EU aid", "Madeira", "action programme", "autonomous community", "fishing vessel", "shipbuilding"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e065a670-7298-4cf8-b5bc-a6380cd54070", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d03fdab9-ef2e-435c-b00c-23009a400e3d", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 406/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Systematic failure by the Council to consult the Consumers' Consultative Council", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European Economic and Social Committee,advisory power,consumer,consumer movement,proposal (EU)", "workIds": "celex:91992E000406", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Economic and Social Committee", "advisory power", "consumer", "consumer movement", "proposal (EU)"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d03fdab9-ef2e-435c-b00c-23009a400e3d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/15e9b89a-508e-42d7-9957-6e9e6233eb5e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 404/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Confidentiality of certain reports drawn up for the Commission", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European Commission,Member of the European Parliament,confidentiality,iron and steel industry,professional secret,report,self-employed person", "workIds": "celex:91992E000404", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European Commission", "Member of the European Parliament", "confidentiality", "iron and steel industry", "professional secret", "report", "self-employed person"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/15e9b89a-508e-42d7-9957-6e9e6233eb5e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/33b9494e-e207-421c-a77b-5a239266c889", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 426/92 by Mr Alex SMITH to the Commission. EURATOM and nuclear exports to Iraq", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SMITH ALEX", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "EAEC,EU aid,Iraq,UN Commission,export,nuclear weapon,provision of documents", "workIds": "celex:91992E000426", "eurovoc_concepts": ["EAEC", "EU aid", "Iraq", "UN Commission", "export", "nuclear weapon", "provision of documents"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/33b9494e-e207-421c-a77b-5a239266c889", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f18a25eb-fe43-44bd-958c-718d05547b03", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 436/92 by Mr Virginio BETTINI and Mr Gianfranco AMENDOLA to the Commission. Extinction of the Mediterranean monk seal", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "AMENDOLA,BETTINI,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Mediterranean Sea,animal disease,marine mammal,protected species,protection of animal life", "workIds": "celex:91992E000436", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Mediterranean Sea", "animal disease", "marine mammal", "protected species", "protection of animal life"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f18a25eb-fe43-44bd-958c-718d05547b03", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b735c9d9-1145-4726-8c4a-cff925467d1e", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 428/92 by Mr Alex SMITH to the Commission. Proliferation controls", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,SMITH ALEX", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European political cooperation,International Atomic Energy Agency,access to information,arms control,arms limitation,arms trade,conventional weapon,nuclear non-proliferation,nuclear weapon", "workIds": "celex:91992E000428", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European political cooperation", "International Atomic Energy Agency", "access to information", "arms control", "arms limitation", "arms trade", "conventional weapon", "nuclear non-proliferation", "nuclear weapon"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b735c9d9-1145-4726-8c4a-cff925467d1e", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d2b215d9-c915-4442-b08c-79b6498cef7a", "title": "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 554/92 of 2 March 1992 amending the list annexed to Regulation (EEC) No 3715/91 establishing, for 1992, the list of vessels exceeding eight metres length overall permitted to fish for sole within certain areas of the Community using beam trawls whose aggregate length exceeds nine metres", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "html,pdfa1b,print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#legislation_secondary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#regulation,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Commission", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "fishing licence,fishing net,fishing vessel", "workIds": "celex:31992R0554,oj:JOL_1992_060_R_0009_019", "eurovoc_concepts": ["fishing licence", "fishing net", "fishing vessel"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/d2b215d9-c915-4442-b08c-79b6498cef7a", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["html", "pdfa1b", "print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5352ec13-01b4-4c67-b095-85908251a3ee", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 414/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 VALVERDE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. Plans for the ' Isla Canela' holiday village in Ayamonte (Huelva) Spain", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VALVERDE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Andalusia,European Regional Development Fund,co-financing,environmental impact,impact study,tourist infrastructure", "workIds": "celex:91992E000414", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Andalusia", "European Regional Development Fund", "co-financing", "environmental impact", "impact study", "tourist infrastructure"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/5352ec13-01b4-4c67-b095-85908251a3ee", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b91b7048-d520-41c2-9702-5e60b71daa35", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 418/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 VALVERDE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. Spain' s failure to comply with Council Directive 71/305/EEC", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VALVERDE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Spain,advisory committee (EU),application of EU law,approximation of laws,award of contract,public contract,single market", "workIds": "celex:91992E000418", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Spain", "advisory committee (EU)", "application of EU law", "approximation of laws", "award of contract", "public contract", "single market"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b91b7048-d520-41c2-9702-5e60b71daa35", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0016d4f2-c7ff-4ee4-ab69-d23f8a5ac530", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 410/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Council. Revision of the standards contained in the directive of 3 October 1989 on television broadcasting activities", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European audiovisual area,approximation of laws,audiovisual industry,broadcasting,cultural heritage,free movement of programmes,television", "workIds": "celex:91992E000410", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European audiovisual area", "approximation of laws", "audiovisual industry", "broadcasting", "cultural heritage", "free movement of programmes", "television"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/0016d4f2-c7ff-4ee4-ab69-d23f8a5ac530", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e0fb47a4-4727-4dba-af58-46eb667bae4d", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 409/92 by Mrs Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Revision of the standards contained in the directive of 3 October 1989 on television broadcasting activities", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "DURY,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "European audiovisual area,European standard,broadcasting,cable distribution,free movement of programmes,freedom to provide services,harmonisation of standards,television", "workIds": "celex:91992E000409", "eurovoc_concepts": ["European audiovisual area", "European standard", "broadcasting", "cable distribution", "free movement of programmes", "freedom to provide services", "harmonisation of standards", "television"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/e0fb47a4-4727-4dba-af58-46eb667bae4d", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dc191f84-5dd1-4d12-9e5c-89f5b52b534c", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 417/92 by Mr Jos\u00e9 VALVERDE L\u00d3PEZ to the Commission. The stage reached in the Commission' s legal action against Spain for breach of public contracts", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,VALVERDE LOPEZ", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Spain,action for failure to fulfil an obligation,application of EU law,invitation to tender,judgment of the Court (EU),public contract,university,works contract", "workIds": "celex:91992E000417", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Spain", "action for failure to fulfil an obligation", "application of EU law", "invitation to tender", "judgment of the Court (EU)", "public contract", "university", "works contract"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/dc191f84-5dd1-4d12-9e5c-89f5b52b534c", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/97f83cd0-0396-47df-a15b-f39d9cbf07b9", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 434/92 by Mr Christos PAPOUTSIS to the Commission. Reduction of transit charges for Greek lorries", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,PAPOUTSIS", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Czechoslovakia,Greece,Hungary,association agreement (EU),road transport,transit", "workIds": "celex:91992E000434", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Czechoslovakia", "Greece", "Hungary", "association agreement (EU)", "road transport", "transit"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/97f83cd0-0396-47df-a15b-f39d9cbf07b9", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/27a2d1d1-971c-41a1-8813-f62ce53c56a3", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 450/92 by Mr Fran\u00e7ois MUSSO to the Commission. Directive of 2 April 1979 on wild birds", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSSO", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Council of the European Union,EC Directive,application of EU law,helicopter,mountain,protection of animal life,sport,wildlife", "workIds": "celex:91992E000450", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Council of the European Union", "EC Directive", "application of EU law", "helicopter", "mountain", "protection of animal life", "sport", "wildlife"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/27a2d1d1-971c-41a1-8813-f62ce53c56a3", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/00da5742-7263-454d-b7bc-c553fc0d766f", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 422/92 by Mrs Brigitte ERNST de la GRAETE to the Commission. Sectoral reconversion programme for the armaments industry", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "ERNST DE LA GRAETE,European Parliament", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "aid to industry,arms industry,disarmament,impact study,industrial conversion", "workIds": "celex:91992E000422", "eurovoc_concepts": ["aid to industry", "arms industry", "disarmament", "impact study", "industrial conversion"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/00da5742-7263-454d-b7bc-c553fc0d766f", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}
+{"cellarURIs": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/419ab335-1a68-4839-8462-864dc8f57d04", "title": "WRITTEN QUESTION No. 441/92 by Mrs Cristiana MUSCARDINI to the Commission. Reconversion of industrial sites", "langIdentifier": "ENG", "mtypes": "print", "workTypes": "http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_parliamentary,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#question_written,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#resource_legal,http://publications.europa.eu/ontology/cdm#work", "authors": "European Parliament,MUSCARDINI", "date": "1992-03-02", "subjects": "Lombardy,Structural Funds,cessation of trading,industrial policy,industrial region,job security,pauperisation", "workIds": "celex:91992E000441", "eurovoc_concepts": ["Lombardy", "Structural Funds", "cessation of trading", "industrial policy", "industrial region", "job security", "pauperisation"], "url": "http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/419ab335-1a68-4839-8462-864dc8f57d04", "lang": "eng", "formats": ["print"]}